I must say this is very bad news. According to Ivan-Cryptic (here;) and I quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan-Cryptic
Well, I really don't know how else I can say this or how many more times I must say it, but we're not doing just that. There will be some kind of elections and forum contributions. There will be more participants, different participants, and we'll never stop reading the forums and listening to all the forum users and posting replies here. Never. This council, again, is just the start of something we can do in addition to all that we already do. It can grow, change, whatever.
You are planning to hold elections. I can only read that as elections among the forum members here.
This is a terrible idea. Every election cycle will simply restart all of the fighting about who is qualified to represent us. Candidates will be harassed and have every detail about themselves nitpicked. You've also stated you intent to post logs of the "meetings" and be open. Every single statement and decision will be argued and flamed and misquoted and taken out of context. The unhappiness that has existed after every controversy we've had since launch will be semi-permanent.
At this point it doesn't even matter if you could actually get quality feedback through this mechanism anymore. The damage it will do to an already divided community here will be quite severe.
Mmm, that does seem to support the experiences that other people shared from other games that have done similar things - I collated a load into one post here
These two in particular:
Originally Posted by sikpuppy
Personally I don't really have a problem with the so called elitist selection method, mostly from seeing what happened with EVE's council, it is voted in and strangely is full of egotistical idiots who do more harm than good for EVE.
Why, because the people voted in are like politicians, and seriously who wants people like that to help influence anything fun
If crypitic don't want to be told who can be on there "advisory Council" so be it, as in all other voted in councils in any MMO I've ever heard of they fail.
Originally Posted by wildcat84
SWG's "senate" is composed of profession "representatives" who are hand picked by SOE, the players have almost no role at all in choosing them.
EVE's "Council of Stellar Management" is actually democratically elected but is ineffective mainly because it's nothing but a popularity contest between the biggest egos and controlled by the largest player alliances who can massively vote.
Somebody also might wanna get IndigoFyre on the horn and get things straight, because... well let me quote for you again from here
Originally Posted by GM_IndigoFyre
A player election would simply turn into a popularity contest. It would not necessarily be about who can represent the issues. Besides on these forums nobody can represent the community as a whole better then Phoxe.
It would take an awful lot of spin to make a serious player election sound good. Then again my background is in sales so if you need spin then you can just call me the dervish
We’ll be posting a list of candidates for user selection soon, most likely via some sort of poll.
Finally – in a word, transparency
In the spirit of transparency then, could you please share with us:
How have these new candidates you have selected been chosen, what is the criteria and process behind this?
Have these new candidates been chosen by Cryptic this time or again by that terrible marketing company Atari hired?
And also how the previous candidates were chosen, can you please explain this?
As others have said the trekmove/starfleet ones seem sensible enough to get input from people that don't play the game on why they don't, and what they would be interested in seeing etc, pretty much everyone seemed to think this was fair enough which is why no one challenged those ones, but what about:
In particular with the first set of candidates you seemed to exclude other podcasts and fan sites when we have quite a few, notably one which has been having links censored from this forum and threads closed, apparently for no other reason than being a voice of dissent. The last post in this thread says that it was closed for breaking guidelines, yet none were broken that I can see unless you are seriously going to start only allowing people to link to "approved" sites? I have read STOked comments about how they have met the developers several times and had dinner with them (ok not an actual photo but you get the gist) before the council was even announced, which seems to back up that the decision was based on favouritism/nepotism amongst friends. :/
Who on earth was "SHUT UP DOCTOR WHO" supposed to be representative of? As they seemed to be surprised when they got extra traffic on their very low readership, myspace-like, blog (and apparently don't have another one other than renaming the same content) (oh and that stuff went out of style ages ago, people actually talk with their friends now not random internet weirdos, that's why Facebook is more popular. I grew out of livejournal and myspace when I was about 16... and no I'm not that all much older now really), your original skit about "become ambassadors for their readers, viewers and followers" doesn't seem to make any sense given that at least one was clearly not an ambassador for anyone but themselves. To me and others, especially on the official chat room including baroness one of your own moderators (operators) there, it looked like pure tokenism - there was nothing else that could have recommended her, and several female members on the forum have expressed distaste that this apparently was supposed to a figurehead to be "our" representative, it was truly horrible PR...
You are really lucky that the majority don't read the forums -- btw please visit Ten Forward, the offtopic forum, there's a lot of "refugees" from the main forum there who don't seem to like the hostility from users like peregrine_falcon who seem to troll and attack other users at every opportunity yet have nothing done to them, I am odd that I actually love debate and think it's a creative thing that makes new things happen, but others find it intimidating. You need to start some kind of outreach to encourage people to participate in game discussion and not just chat to each other, or they will eventually decide that well, they don't need to be subscribing to do that.
Wow, way to go. The heavy hand of censorship here just reinforces my certainty that this "council" thing is a creation intended for pure damage control and PR only. To counter the bad press this game has gotten because it was released very VERY unfinished and lacking almost completely an end game (and no, 4-5 repeatable quests are NOT an endgame). Which may explain why I've not actually logged in to play in 2 weeks. There is more replay value in Mass Effect 2 than in STO. Which is pathetic.
The only reason they are doing this is so they can answer any press criticism with: "Yeah, we are listening to the players. Look! we have this council of players (that we handpicked)".
Come on guys, we aren't this stupid. Most of us have been around the block a few times. We've seen this sort of thing before and we aren't going to be fooled by it.
You can fool the press (who want your advertising dollars). You can't fool your customers (those who give you dollars).
Ok without trying to flame you wildcat i see your concerns and anger towards Cryptic right now but i know it is sorely misplaced .
1. there were games with a worse release than STO with absolutely nothing to repeat at end game or it was even inpossible to reach end game . This company is the best one i know and actually listen to the general populus(and that is saying something i have been round the block and played alot of mmo's since 1997)
2. this sort of council has been done in other games i can name one which has class heads , World of ********, who also pay for the game and air all the populous's concerns to blizzard who i might add don't even pay one bit of notice to the concerns of the player base( what we have here my friend is a diamond in the rough a company who actually listen's and you go and rant at them because your too furious to see sense)
3. Yes it is PR attempt and a very good attempt at getting players back ( dont just see negatives my friend the world isnt just a dark place and not everyone is out to anger you).
So if you took offence to my comments i apologise it is not meant to others will know how diplomatic i am .
Forgive me if I repeat anything someone has already said here. Changing the name now won't make a difference the damage has been done. Disband the current council !
It is a focus group! and that is fine cryptic needs one for this game, but having people who are friends of atari / cryptic personel seems a bit underhanded to me, it appears they are trying to stack the deck in the companys favor. these people should not be allowed because they could influence those who aork at atari / cryptic outside the channels that this group is supposed to operate through.
I believe the group should only have one outside source serve in this group at a tive the rest should be made up of the comunity at large. as for the time they serve, if they serve for 1 month they should not be able to be reappointed to serve for at least 1 month after thier term expires. this will allow a larger number of people to participate.
Those of us who have been around since the beginning and are still here are the core group for this game we have seen how it started, where it is now and want to help make it better.
sorry you were forced into micromanaging and damage control on what should have been a slam dunk for PR and STO as a whole. Keep it up, Cryptic, at least some people here appreciate how hard you all try.
This is the kind of person that watches a McDonald's worker spit in his burger and then thanks them for all there hard work and the new sauce lol.
Keep on giving me infractions. Ban me for all I care. But as long as I have a voice, I am going to call it as I see it. I do not agree that there is anything wrong with what I am saying, so I promise you that you are going to HAVE to ban me to keep me from saying it. Deleting, banning, trying to hide opposition doesn't make it go away. It actually makes it stronger. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from the disasters of SOE with Star Wars Galaxies?
And, no, I don't want to be on your council and would not consent to do so even if chosen. I am paying professionals to make me a Star Trek game. I don't want a second job that I not only NOT get paid for, but that I have to PAY to do. No thanks. Which is another reason why I don't believe in the player council concept. You are supposed to listen to ALL of us, because we ALL pay your salaries. I do NOT want to play a game that is being planned by amateurs handpicked for their "fanboi score". And I suspect others won't either.
First, thanks for the update Phoxe! I agree with the suggestions to NOT release any more information on a Friday though, it gives the people who don't understand what the council is for all weekend to spread misinformation about it while trying to build their mountain out of the molehill.
Second, Wildcat the game isn't being planned by the council any more than it is being planned by those of us that post on the forums. It's being planned by Cryptic, and they are seeking input from multiple sources, since you are so outraged by this source of feedback since you seem to think it will diminish your voice to the developers, I'd like to know where your rage posts are about the Twitter pages, Facebook, and other social networking sites that Cryptic has and uses for soliciting feedback?