Jedi Council Evaluation and Revamp

[Figrin D'an]

The GJO staff is in the process of evaluating possible changes to be made to the structure and makeup of the Jedi Council. These may include changes to the election process, number of seats, establishing a mixture of permenant and variable seats, and changing the interaction of the Council with the rest of the Order.

However, as part of this process, we would like input from all members of the community. This is an opportunity to evalute the current premise under which the council operates, and suggest changes that may improve it.


Several ideas have been discussed amongst the staff already, and this will be a forum in which ideas will be presented by those who suggested them. Others may offer their input on these suggestions, and offer suggestions of their own. Essentially, we want everyone to ask themselves "What can the Council do for the group to improve the RP experience?", and place your answers in this thread.


Please keep the discussion civil and on topic. The thread will be kept open as long as necessary.

[Sejah Haversh]

I personally believe that the current council, with nine seats, is too large. Our base ofd eligible and willign knights is too small to actually have it feel like an election; instead it feels as if whoever gets nominated will be on the council, save for the few that really didn't fit anyhow.

Think we ought to return the council size to seven, and not have any permanent seats. Those who really should be on the council will be voted into place by the members of the order, as has happened for as long as I have been here. With seven members, there are still enough members to always have one or two around, but it seems more exclusive, and makes the election more of just that, an election.

As far as "what should the council do," I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I think that their principal function should be to do what they are doing in the "Death Sentence" thread in Avalon, and that is to moderate situations in the order, and dispense punishment when needed, as well as praise. They really run the workings of the Order, so if something is done that is against the rules, they ought to deal with it. I'm not talkign every petty thing, because that would be tedious, but things of a more important nature.

I view the Council as they are shown in Episodes I and II, as a group of the most prominent Jedi who are entrusted with makign the decisions that will affect the order, and are responsible for making sure that the Order is followign what they should be doing. Yes, they can seem aloof, but they still understand the workings of the whole Order. I also see them as a source of guidance for when a character is troubled about things concerning their life as a Jedi, or other problems regarding the Force.

For the election process, I like the three elections per year idea, because it gives us a chance to change as times on the boards change. However, the one thing I don't like about it is the rule stating that a member must have been of at least Knight status since before the last election in order to be considered. While I completely understand the original basis of this rule, I also have a minor nitpick with it. What if a character was promoted only shortly after an election, but it is evident that he or she is a very good player and their character would logically fit on the Council? (I am *not* talking about Sejah, so don't even start with me on that.) I think that a more case-by-case basis should be implied rather than an iron-clad rule in that case. That's just my thinking, though.

Well, that's all from me. Who else has some ideas?

[Kelt Simoson]

I have to disagree with Sejah, i think its already pretty exculsive with the nine seats. What i do feel is slightly wrong is the fact the Council are lacking any new partisipents, we have to little number of Knights to be able to be voted onto the council in the first place. I know some awsome Padawans close to being a Knight that would be perfect for the IC council, Sejah, Jacali being only a few of them.

Basicly we need to sort out, if we can, the lack of Knights in the Order in my opinion.

As for what the council can do, i ecoe fully what the mongoose said.

[Ryla Relvinian]

Well, we're not going to change how quickly Padawans are promoted, that is for sure right now. I think most of us agree that promoting Padawans before they are ready, we get half-hearted Knights and that ends up negatively impacting more than the council.

I will, however, present the idea that I have also presented in the mod forum, in order to get some other opinions on it.

Firstly, the council should be reduced to seven members. Three of those members would be permanent members, leaving only in the case of their own request, the unanimous vote of the other council members or other extreme situations. These three members would be voted in initially by all Jedi, and should represent all the things that the code stands for. They can be Knight or Master, warrior or scholar, whatever represents solidity in the Jedi. Their job will be to work on very high-level Jedi matters, in terms of threats by Sith or other groups, Diplomacy and internal Jedi affairs. Kind of like a tri-presidency, if you will.

The other four members would be voted on every three months, and will take up specific offices that is in their own area of strength. For example, one council membe could oversee all Initiate level training and recruitment, as well as the affairs of the grounds. Another one could work on Holocron and archival matters, and be a resource for Padawans. One other could be a very strong warrior, and serve as a model for training combat. One could be a talented healer, or have a connection to the living force.

This way, instead of a group of random people (which still works, I might add) there are distinct roles that can be filled. The council would still work together to solve problems, hear matters etc. This way, the same person could be nominated for several posts, depending on their skills. I realize this sounds more complicated, but I think it might work. Besides, if it doesn't, I think it would be an easy transition back to a simple group.

Either way, reducing the number of seats would help out, at least until we promote several Padawans and begin to even out the balance. We've also got several rules going up in the FAQ that are going to make it easier for first-time RPers to get masters here. Stay tuned! ;D

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Ryla Relvinian
We've also got several rules going up in the FAQ that are going to make it easier for first-time RPers to get masters here.

Aye.

See here (http://69.56.186.201/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34022) for the rules that have been added. They have also been added to the FAQ.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Ryla's suggestions sound like a good idea.

Seven member council. 3 permanent and 4 rotating. Good idea, IMO.

[Helenias Evenstar]

I would think that the best idea is not to have permanents at all. That seems wrong to me. An extended term, which you must stand down for a term at the end so to give others a chance to sit on the council would be better.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I support/agree with everything that Ryla has said.

[Morgan Evanar]

I think the three permanets need to be very active people without a history of long absences.

Further, they also need to be able to be removed in the event they develope a pattern of dissapearance.

[Dasquian Belargic]

That's a given, yes.

[Pierce Tondry]

Just as an aside, I think the main problem being combatted is inactivity.

I had things I was going to suggest, but I reviewed them and at the moment I think they would mostly end up a re-hash of other things that have been said. Instead I'll just offer a few opinions.

1. Permanent Council seating: people seem divided on this. I could go either way, myself, since I see both pluses and minuses to it. One thing I think would be important is to define what makes a perma-member different from a regular member. If the answer is simply contributions over time, I think there is no need for the position because the same people can simply be re-elected. If there is a different reasoning behind the suggestion (unrelated to simple procedural matters such as voting tiebreakers) then it would probably seem more important to me.

2. 7 member council: the need for a smaller council is nearly self-evident. It is hard to get all 9 current Councilmembers participating in a given thread, let alone have them decide on something.

However, I don't believe the entire Council should be needed for every Council-tagged thread, especially given how hard it can be to get people involved in the first place. I think a minimum of 4 members (if permamembers are adopted, at least two of them should participate) would be enough to carry the council through most issues.

3. Defining 4 Council offices: I think we really need these fleshed out to an actual proposal before giving them serious consideration. My concern is that some of the mentioned ideas are offices that can be filled by anyone, and do not necessarily need a CM to do them. Right now they sound like a nice way to wrap some things up into a single package, and I hesitate to do anything simply because it's convenient. It bit us in the rear before.

[Ryla Relvinian]

This is true...

Well, how about instead of lifetime members, we go for three year-long members? That way, they can be voted upon and changed but still serve the same function? One of the downfalls of permanent membership is complacency, and this might help.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Permanent members are a no-go for me. It needs to stay all elected. I fear ego-inflation.

The permanent seating deal reminds me of when Jamel pitched the idea that just one guy ought to be permanently in charge.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
Permanent members are a no-go for me. It needs to stay all elected. I fear ego-inflation.


In some cases, I may be worried about something like this. Regarding GJO, though, I'm not all that concerned about this jacking up someone's ego and attitude. There's still the possibility that said person could be voted out by other members. And, to be honest, it's not really much different from the organization of the board staff. The admin and mod spots are "permanent," for all intents and purposes, and I don't really think we have an ego problem within that group. Perhaps my perception is skewed, but we seem to have a good number of level-headed people around here.


Anyway... I'm still iffy on this aspect personally. I'll have to give it, and other considerations, further thought.

[James Prent]

I tend to side with Sejah on this one.

The problem with permanent seats is those that might be elected permanently (as I imagine it) is that they probably won't be as active as y'all want them to be. I think a break from being on the council is a good thing.

I would say have a seven member council, and make it so one person could only serve two terms and have to take a term off, to give the RPer a break, and to provide others with the RPing experience of being on the Council. Then after their term away from the Council, the RPer would be elegible [sp] for re-election once more.

(And considering Swfans has only been around for five or so years, three year memberships is a *very* long time)

[Kelt Simoson]

I totaly agree with this lady upstairs ^

[Dasquian Belargic]

I would say have a seven member council, and make it so one person could only serve two terms and have to take a term off, to give the RPer a break, and to provide others with the RPing experience of being on the Council.

As it is, we don't have enough people of Knight rank to be able to do that, I think :\

[Estelle Russard]

The permanent seats are not necessary imo.

A 7 seat council is reasonable.

The two-term on the Council isnt necessary either. People that get elected to the council are usually those who are reliably active and involved. Mainly why they are elected in the first place. To limit them to a two term doesnt really improve on things that I can see. If someone wants a break, they can decline nomination.

Our problem isnt having too many people for the position on council, as much as it is not having enough to select from.

[James Prent]

Then more time should be spent training and making RPers ready for the responsibility.

[Ka' el Darcverse]

How about 3 One year term members? Instead of swapping out every 3 or 4 months have three who swap out once a year. This is a compromise of sorts. Kinda like the senate and the house in American government (my apologies to the right honorable gentlemen and ladies from the lands of parlimentary systems.)

Oh well just a suggestion (kinda like having permanent spell check for all of my posts)

[Shade Magus]

I think that a good idea is to have 7 members and then like every four months vote 4 of them off and people to take their place then that way you'll be giving a better range of competeition since there aren't enough Knights and then when the next election comes up vote the three that stayed on last time. Like i said it will give more of a competition for the Knights and then it will also allow the remaining three or four a chance to make sure that people that are newly elected learn from the others what they do.....just my thoughts.

[Wei Wu Wei]

So if I understand you right, it'll work like this:

4 month happen: Vote for 4, keep 3.

Next 4 months: Vote for 3 to replace the ones that had stayed on from last time.

So you'd essentially be voting for half and keeping half, each time, just alternating which half you keep and which you vote on.

I still think it would be easier to make none of the positions permanent and just vote for all 7 positions as per usual. It's less complicated.

But to be honest, we would end up voting anyway, but people seem to have been withdrawing their names from the ballot recently. It happens.

[Rognan Dar]

Well, from what I saw about Shade's idea is that you have to vote off four people. To me, see that I was voted off, would just make me feel like I was either not doing a good job or that others just dont like what I do. And that would hurt me greatly. I wouldn't want to think that I would have to vote someone off. Even for something as simple as a seat for the council.

I dont see anything wrong with the way that the system is right now. It just seems that we are lacking in knights that stick around. If that is the problem, then it doesn't have anything to do with how the council works already. Though, I am open to changes. Just dont really see why right now. Just my thoughts on the matter...

[Azhure Darkstone]

if we keep the the way the elections are held, and have only 7 or 6 people on council but define their roles as another wise mind has pointed out that could be efficient. Or have three defined roles, and have two people in charge of them so theoredically there is always someone to contact. Then the council meetings would be swapping of vital info. The election process for one year is fine, but if that wants changing why not make it half yearly?

[Pierce Tondry]

I've been watching this thread and I think the contributions are working their way somewhere.

The goal of these suggestions is to alter the Council in ways that will spur more creativity and fun when it comes to RPing, not just streamline things for efficiency. As a result, I think we need to consider each suggestion in light of whether it fits both the creative and practical goals we're trying to accomplish.

Now for a few more opinions. :)

1. I do not see the permanent seat idea as having any merits towards the creative goal.

Instead, I view it as a potential detriment, lending towards stagnation rather than adaptability. (There are pros, but I believe this con outweighs them) Therefore, I believe it should be dispensed with.

2. I do not see changing the time between elections as meeting either creative or practical goals.

Three times a year (once every four months) seems sufficient to me. Long enough to allow for some permanency, yet short enough to allow for change.

3. I believe decreasing the size of the Council to seven members meets both goals.

Changing the size of the council helps free some RPers for more general RPing and concentrates the Council into a more manageable number. The Council as a whole can get together better, making decisions and not causing threads to stall out due to lack of those extra couple members.

4. I believe it important that a direction be established for the Council to go in.

From what I see, the Council rarely does anything other than promote or vote. Its role seems entirely reactionary, only interacting with other RPers as need arises. I don't believe that's either useful or right. I believe a goal needs to be established for the Council to work towards, and I believe more general proactivity needs to be included.

To that end, I ask the following questions because I think they will help:

1. What, in your eyes, would be a good mission statement- a single sentence describing an ultimate goal- for the Jedi Council in the RP?

2. If you could break that goal down into several important functions, what would those functions be?

3. Are those functions being met by the current Council or not?

4. Pick a Jedi (any Jedi!) whose character you think is an exemplary fit of those functions.

I would lead off with my own ideas, but I don't want to prejudice this yet. Plus, I am tired and need bedness.

[Ace McCloud]

New Idea here.

In the EU and in the movies of star wars, the council was very active in the universe and dispatch respective jedi to do a certain mission, take care of a problem, or negotiate. I know that now people just create their own missions and say they are from the council, but it would make it a much better RP experience if the council actually did give out the order. I think the council needs to be more involved in the universe here at sw-fans including battles, conflicts, and political stands, and use the padawans and knights as their pawns. I know it is a big thing to ask and the council already has alot to do, but it would be easy to work in over time.

[Shade Magus]

i too was also thinking that. I mean, a lot of people do just go out and do their own thing, but the there is alot that do nothing. I say the council should set out a sort of list of things to do and then assign them to everyone.

[Rognan Dar]

That would, indeed, make the RPing experience more fun. But what about planning it out? The council have, I'm sure, many things to do already. But then we add a thing such as making ideas for others to Roleplay out? Dont get me wrong, I like the idea. But I know, if I was on the council, that I would have a hard time trying to take care of my characters and also try to think up stuff for others. Heck, I have problems just coming up with stuff for myself.

[Ace McCloud]

Yes, I know, and there inlies the problem. But missions aren't as hard to come up with as entire RP's are. Its just a simple ordeal like such and such happened and we need you to go out and fix it. Then the member roleplays out what happened and the council is through with it. Of course it would be easy to program a random mission generator, but of course someone would have to come up with the missions.

[Lion El' Jonson]

I think one problem with having the Council actually "RP" out dispatching Jedi is that too many fingerprints get on one person's idea. Whereas somebody may have wanted their thread a certain way, involving the council in it may invite suggestions or changes from people that weren't originally intended to participate.

If I were to make a thread, I'd prefer that it came straight from my mind, rather than from somebody else's.

Permanent Members: Likewise, I agree with Pierce on the issue of Permanent Members. A Permanent member is detrimental to the functionality of the Council. A measure of familiarity is unnecessary, as many of the current council members get elected again to the same posts anyways. Likewise, rotating "new blood" throughout the council ensures that new ideas are being heard, and we see different styles of governing. Therefore, Permanent Members are not needed, and bring with them more cons than pros.

Council Size: The size of the council certainly needs to be reduced, but I believe that has already been addressed. Promoting Padawans before they are ready or experienced enough could lead to "half-baked" RPs; furthermore it is unlikely that a Jedi Knight that nobody has heard of will be able to win a seat on the Council anyways, so promoting them early does not accomplish anything. "Voting" people off the council sounds ridiculous to me; it could only result in hurt feelings. If I'm kicked off of the council, it's unlikely to motivate me to work any harder to improve.

~Lion~

[Dasquian Belargic]

But missions aren't as hard to come up with as entire RP's are.

They're essentially the same thing. I could post saying that there was an escaped criminal, arguement, etc but I don't see the RPs going anywhere, personally. If you're suggesting that the council just dish out orders and then cut involvement with them, you might as well start the thread yourself. After all, all we'd be doing is giving a vague idea of what was going on. It would be out of our hands then, and therefore your idea to run with / formulate. You can just do things like that yourself. It shouldn't be up to the Council to carry your whole rping experience.


"Voting" people off the council sounds ridiculous to me; it could only result in hurt feelings.

That's too bad really, but if someone isn't doing there job, they shouldnt be on the Council. I would rather have a Council of active helpful people than one full of people who are never here, just so we can make sure their feelings aren't hurt. If that doesn't motivate you to try harder, I don't know what will really.

[Pierce Tondry]

That sort of thing ought to be able to be done at any time, really. Inactivity is the demon biting at all our heels, and if the people in charge aren't handling the problem, new people need to be in charge.

I still have more to say on this, but it's still stewing in my head. I will post when it is coherent.

[Oriadin]

Ok, ive been out of action in this site for a while but its interesting looking in on something Ive been away from but know how it works.

First and foremost, the council should be reduced to seven members at the most. Having nine just doesnt make it exclusive enough. I think it was always hard to think of nine people who were right for the positions.

Second, I see no point in having any kind of permanent positions. Most of the council is re-voted in every time anyway so really the people who are voted in, deserve to be there. I see nothing gained by having permanent people.

Now comes the hard part. The job of the council. From the very first time I joined, this question seems to be fuzzy. Reading Sejah's post at the start of this thread was the closest to what I would tend to agree with...

The job of the council should be to monitor all the knights and all the padawans as best as they can to watch for any problems or IC troubles that characters are having. They should be there for people to go to for guidence and advice and to make sure things run smoothly IC. Now, in reality there are far too many threads for the council members to be reading all of the time to keep a watch on everyone meanwhile posting in their own threads.

Here comes the part I think council members may not like. What if the job of a council member was purely to watch and monitor all the other Jedi in all the other threads. As best as they can anyway.

In the films it seems apparent that the council do very little in the way of going on missions and doing erronds. I think a suggestion to think about is that this be the job(s) of the council.

1. Be there for any Jedi who wants guidence or advice.

2. Keep an eye on all Jedi goings on, and get in touch with someone IC should anything go on that the council is concerned about.

3. Be a group for Masters to talk about their padawans if they have any concerns.

4. Make the desicions that involve the rest of the group as a whole IC.

I think it would be an idea for council members to avoid posting as normal RPers do and only join in a RP in exceptional circumstances. This would also add to the weight of, holly cow, there is a council member here! Like it would if Mace or Yoda turned up to see you in one of your missions. Perhaps have a private forum for council members to discuss ideas, thoughts and concerns. Also, if you think about it, not all Jedi have to be watched at the same time. You could draw up a list of border line light/dark side Jedi that the council want to keep a close eye on.

Just a few ideas. I may be a bit rusty around here, so its really just a few things to think about and perhaps talk about further. :)

[Lion El' Jonson]

Indeed, but how many people have left these boards because they felt like nobody listened to them? Agreed, you're unlikely to get anybody like that on the council in the first place, but still...

Oh, nevermind, I just contradicted myself. Shoot. :lol

Inactivity is the wooden stake for the council. Reducing its size means that it'll likely be limited to those we know can do the job right. To this day, have we ever kicked somebody off of the council for any reason?

[Ace McCloud]

I see both of your ponits, Dasq and Lion, but I disagree.


Whereas somebody may have wanted their thread a certain way, involving the council in it may invite suggestions or changes from people that weren't originally intended to participate.

If I were to make a thread, I'd prefer that it came straight from my mind, rather than from somebody else's.

I don't think so. Essentially it is your idea, you formulate the RP around a certain group of guidelines (such as location and NPC's) either by yourself or bring someone else.


They're essentially the same thing. I could post saying that there was an escaped criminal, arguement, etc but I don't see the RPs going anywhere, personally. If you're suggesting that the council just dish out orders and then cut involvement with them, you might as well start the thread yourself. After all, all we'd be doing is giving a vague idea of what was going on. It would be out of our hands then, and therefore your idea to run with / formulate. You can just do things like that yourself. It shouldn't be up to the Council to carry your whole rping experience.

First of all, a mission idea is simply an idea thrown out there. Sure it would take a little thought process, but not in the same way as a long drawn out RP, as you said, you are simply handing the mission out. For the rest I agree, however, like I said before it does make for a much better RP experience.

I know thats alot to ask of the council, and whether they decide to go with any of these ideas is entirely up to them. However I think it would be easy to come to some agreements:

If the council were more involved in the political standpoints of the universe here (that is - if), errands and missions would generate themselves due to situations and events that develope. For example: Operation Scythe. There is a big Skirmish being held on Bestine and I don't think it would be such a bad idea to perhaps apoint some Jedi leaders and commanders there.

Second, rather than the council coming up with missions for knights and padawans, a member of the Order could come up with their own RP idea PM it to one of the friendly Council members and request that IC he/she is given the mission. I say this because it would make just a much more fun RPing experience, knowing your mission literally came from the council. Everyone likes to be recognized you know.

[Rognan Dar]

I had a idea from Ace. Though, I think making the council come up with missions/RPs for others is a little harsh, but I also see a kind of testing point to this:

With limited info they will have to come up with things on their own. Stretching them out to think 'out side the box' and te help them grow and think up their own RPs after that. Thats what I think could come from that idea.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Oriadin
I think it would be an idea for council members to avoid posting as normal RPers do and only join in a RP in exceptional circumstances. This would also add to the weight of, holly cow, there is a council member here! Like it would if Mace or Yoda turned up to see you in one of your missions.


I can understand this POV, but it really hinders the growth and storylines for those people on the council. While most of those sitting on the Council do have well-defined characters, that doesn't preclude that the characters are still dynamic. This would potentially stunt the evolution of a given character, simple because they sit on the Council. I can't say I'd be one to support such an idea.



Originally posted by Ace McCloud
Second, rather than the council coming up with missions for knights and padawans, a member of the Order could come up with their own RP idea PM it to one of the friendly Council members and request that IC he/she is given the mission. I say this because it would make just a much more fun RPing experience, knowing your mission literally came from the council. Everyone likes to be recognized you know.

Should mission assignment become the norm for the Council, this is the most appropriate manner in which it could be conducted, IMO. This provides Council involvement with RP storylines while still allowing the primary character(s) to be involved in the RP to maintain creative control. You have Council involved, but at a relatively innocuous level as a standard operating procedure. Should an RPer desire it, they could request greater involvement by the Council or a Council member within a given RP.

This isn't to say, however, that every RP should be done this way. Otherwise, we risk overloading the Council with "mission assignment" threads, and a rift developing between the Council and the rest of the Order wouldn't certainly not be a good thing.

[Ace McCloud]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
This isn't to say, however, that every RP should be done this way. Otherwise, we risk overloading the Council with "mission assignment" threads, and a rift developing between the Council and the rest of the Order wouldn't certainly not be a good thing.

Right but for this to work the council would have to be very open and patient. Most of the time it won't even require full participation -- with the council thread where we receive the mission that is -- but member should feel welcome to do this kind of thing. From what I've seen, there aren't hardly all that many missions that have a stated council request but either way the members should have a limit. I think most of us could reasonably control our number of quests but, well you know how some people are.

[Lion El' Jonson]

This idea sounds pretty good, however there will have to be some common-sense involved for which threads are assigned by the council, and which ones are undertaken of the character's own accord.

If you're going on a mission to hunt down your long-lost half-cousin, say, it's unlikely the council would assign something like that. "Mission Assignment" threads will almost certainly be limited to operations with political, military, or humanitarian ties.