Council Revamping- Do or Do Not

[Navaria Tarkin]

;) Hey I thought it was witty. Anyway...

The moderators have been working diligently, debating on what to do with the Council issue. The Council is an important corner stone for the GJO but things need to change for the betterment of the group... or not.

Which is why I am starting this thread, to discuss our future as a group. We have three options that the staff has come up with, but now it is turned over to the entire Order to decide on what you guys think :)

1. We can keep things the same.

2. We can reduce the Council size and vote in people like we always do. Also, the length of time the council can be voted in on is up for debate as well. Longer, shorter etc...

3. Make the Council Positions permanent. People in the role of the Council would want to do this job because once you've decided/group has decided that you are giving position, that's it until you step down.

let the discussion begin!

[James Prent]

1. No, don't keep it the same.

2. voting is cool, but maybe longer terms and a much smaller council. 3 or 5.

3. This is an interesting idea, but what if a permanent council member goes MIA and doesn't step down first?

I would further suggest some failsafes: if a council member fails to post for a certain amount of time, or misses more than two council threads, they get replaced.

[Jacen]

1. Change

2. Reduction of size to 3 or 5 as James stated.

3. I don't agree with permanent positions unless it is just one or two because as James stated, what if they went MIA?

[Rognan Dar]

Funny that this topic keeps coming up.

I agree with everything James said. I would like to see the council be more like it was in the movies. Having more of a set council that is always there. But I know this can not always be.

I also think the terms could maybe be longer and not so many people. But with that thought it seems to me that those few people would either have a lot to do and maybe not enough time to do it (that is if there is more activity that needs the council).

But what I notice alot in votes is that the same people are always voted for. Not saying this is bad, because those people have done a good job each time. But what I would also like to see is maybe a little more of a set of voting. Like only two of the five council members can return for another term, if that is so desired. And then leave the other three open for more of the new knights to give the position a try. Or visa virsa. Three again and two new. I dont mean that they have to be NEW knights, just ones that have not yet been given a chance at the seat yet. And that way we kind of give the other members a vaction from the position and can be voted again next time.

[James Prent]

Well the problem with that is that if we force people who are 'good' at it to step down, just to let in people who aren't qualified, we'll be inviting a lot of problems, imo.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by James Prent
I would further suggest some failsafes: if a council member fails to post for a certain amount of time, or misses more than two council threads, they get replaced.


This is basically what would occur. Even with permanent positions, there would be a contingency to replace those whom become inactive. Reducing the size of the council will make this much more feasible by increasing the pool of qualified potential replacements.

For the record, I would encourage everyone who reads this to respond in some manner and make your voice heard. The staff always seriously considers input from the community before making crucial decisions, but if you don't respond, there is much less information on which to judge public opinion. This is your opportunity to contribute to the bettering of the group.

[Lion El' Jonson]

Frankly, I'd be happy to see some change in the Council. At the moment, it has become too hard to have them all meet in a thread and keep a discussion going, which is probably why things have been 'chugging' as of late. Anything that turns the council away from its layers of Bureaucracy would be welcome.

That said, I think that permanent members are a bad idea, for the very reasons already outlined above. Furthermore, it stands that people should be given a chance to get on the council, or have the threat of being tossed off. Of course, if we end up with the current stagnation, with the same people getting elected every time, it might just be easier to move to permanent positions.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I think we should cut down the number of people on the council, and avoid permanent positions if possible.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Yes, let's please do a smaller council.

Also, I like the idea that if Council members miss too many threads in which they are needed, they should get the boot.

[James Prent]

We should encourage nominations of new people, rather than just the same old same old.

[AmazonBabe]

1. No, don't keep it the same.

2. voting is cool, but maybe longer terms and a much smaller council. 3 or 5.

3. This is an interesting idea, but what if a permanent council member goes MIA and doesn't step down first?

Agreed.


I would further suggest some failsafes: if a council member fails to post for a certain amount of time, or misses more than two council threads, they get replaced.

To add to this, if someone that was set on the permanent Council were to go MIA without first giving a warning of either stepping down or taking a temp leave of absense, then they should be replaced by someone suitable for the task.

If someone were to however say they are taking a temp leave of absense, we could replace them with a temp member until he/she returned.

[Rognan Dar]

Originally posted by James Prent
Well the problem with that is that if we force people who are 'good' at it to step down, just to let in people who aren't qualified, we'll be inviting a lot of problems, imo.

But isn't that kind of what RPing is about? We can't always have the perfect Order. But I understand what your saying. Maybe I didn't define it clearly. What I really meant to say is that there should be new people to have a chance, but not someone that is not qualified. And that would be determined by the people that vote for them.


We should encourage nominations of new people, rather than just the same old same old.

That is the sum up of what I was trying to say...

[James Prent]

But I said it first. :mneh No, I figured that was what you meant... but as long as people want to nominate the same members, we'll never have a different council.

However, with the long string of absenteeism from the current council, there may be a shake up in the nominations, anyway.

[Lion El' Jonson]

I think another thing that has to be limited is the number of votes that people get when electing the council. If there's only going to be 5 members on the new council, I don't think we should all get 5 votes. Maybe 2 or 3, to make it a bit more of a thinking process. After all, we don't get to vote for everybody on the Senate, just the ones representing our State.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lion El' Jonson
I think another thing that has to be limited is the number of votes that people get when electing the council. If there's only going to be 5 members on the new council, I don't think we should all get 5 votes. Maybe 2 or 3, to make it a bit more of a thinking process.

I like this idea... a lot. Maybe this way, each voter will consider the choices more carefully, rather than just rattling off a list of those with whom they are familiar and see on the Council all the time.

Maybe something like: number of votes per ballot = 1/2 total Council seats available.

[Oriadin]

Well Im back and reading a couple of threads to try and catch up with whats been going on around here.

When I used to post here alot, I was of the opinion the Council was far to big anyway. Threads involving a lot of people never seem to work unless they have pages and pages of planning. Meaning anyone who wants a quick chat with the council ends up being bogged down waiting for everyone else to apply.

I definitely think the council should be cut down in size. Possibly four, but I would say no more than five.

I too think the idea of only getting to vote for 2 council members is an excellent idea. Im sure a lot of people can think of a few people they would vote for, and then the rest you look at who are usually on the council and vote for them.

As for extending the time between votes, I would say it doesnt really matter. If I am to stay posting (which I hope to do) then I would prefer votes to stay just as frequent. It means the place is always in charge of the people we currently think are capable, and not who we thought could have done it 6 months ago.

[James Prent]

I like the idea of a limited number of votes per person as well. And I think the council should be small, but also an odd number, so we don't have to have tie breaker votes.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Originally posted by James Prent
I like the idea of a limited number of votes per person as well.

:thumbup Definetly.

[Wei Wu Wei]

So in summary it seems like most of the people posting agree on more or less 3 points.

1) The Council should be reduced to at least 5 members.

2) Council members should be replaced if they miss too many threads (i think the consensus is Council Members would be allowed to miss no more than 2 or 3).

3) Members of the GJO would only be allowed to vote for 2 or 3 out of the total 5 members.

I just thought it would be nice to have it all summed up in one post.

[Navaria Tarkin]

Yep, thank you Wei. I am liking those thoughts as well.

If a Council member is going to be gone for a period of time and they know ahead of time, they need to post in OOC. - I know it goes without saying but considering that we are fixing things up, just wanted to add that :)

[Telexia Xio]

I just want to add my thoughts for moment. I don't like the idea of permanent council members.

[Oriadin]

Originally posted by James Prent
I think the council should be small, but also an odd number, so we don't have to have tie breaker votes.

I suppose there are both good things and bad about having an even number of council members. Mainly, if there are an even number and the votes on the council are split evenly then things will have to be discussed until someone is convinced into changing their mind. Could make interesting role play. On the other hand, it may cause arguments and delays in threads.

[James Prent]

I think it would cause unnecessary delay, and we already have enough delay in council threads. :\

[Oriadin]

yeah, I think I would go along with that.

[spada]

1. Dont Keep things the same

2. Same as most other people; less council members (odd #) but make sure they are known to be frequent checkers of the site so we dont have a council member posting very little and slowing up processes

3. I dont think we should make them permanent cause like others said they might not be great for the job

[Lion El' Jonson]

Maybe there should be the ability to impeach a permanent council member in extreme cases. Besides serving as a way to avoid a dead council, it also might open up to an interesting RP idea.

Then again, I've realized that Council Elections aren't really IC, so it probably wouldn't translate to a good RP idea.

Well, great. I just convinced myself against my own idea. :lol

[Falcon Gyndar]

Don't keep it the same...Change is good!

The number of members is not a matter that appears problematic in my mind, but if it were to be changed, I would say there should be less of them.

And last, but not least, Permanent members... Well, there is three sides to every coin (Don't ask..there's two, really) and while it's good in that if the permanents (whole or partial council) are really dependable, then I'd go for it. But life is too random, so the other side heads back to my beleif that change is good. Basically I'm more or less indecisive on that point.

[James Prent]

The fact that our last elections were in May, and we have had a total of 5 (five) council threads since then should tell us something needs to be changed to make the council more accessible to the Jedi.

[Robot]

How about an idea completely out of left field. Throw the elections out entirely and every four or so months, call for volunteers. Have a right of veto for the staff (to stop ass clowns) and let the people who want the job to have it? Give players a max consecutive term and that way everyone who actually wants the task can have it. Have five council members? Fine, first five Jedi Knights keen enough get it.

There's potential for suck, yes. But I guess over the many years we've had this discussion again and again so Just make it real simple and quick and easy to understand. A rule to deal with absent council members, a rule to deal with idiot council members and your away.

[Oriadin]

I definitely think there should be some kind of vote going on, and not just a first come first served thing going on for the council. Every Jedi here would love to say, oh yeah, im on the council but not everyone is cut out for the task. Its an IC responsability and not just something you can say, what the hell, yeah, I'll do it.

I think keeping a vote is for the best, but that its in need of reform. So far im liking the ideas thrown up by the thread.

[Shade Magus]

I agree with Oriadin on the voting thing. That is a must.

There are good ideas being thrown up and it would seem that there are really atleast two constants: don't keep things the same and less council memebers. The only thing that really seems to be an issue here is whether or not to have

[Kieran Devaneaux]

I agree with what everyone else says - change things around. Less people on the council, odd numbered, and don't make it permanent. And IMHO, Masters only; that's all who sat on the canon(esque) Jedi Council anywho....

-K.D.

[James Prent]

The problem with Masters only, is that we only have three or five Masters of the Force in GJO right now, and they're not necessarily the most active of members.

[Rognan Dar]

But do you think that the rank of Master might be a little over percieved? I mean, reading the NJO serious there seems to be a lot of master then would have been thought since the end of the Empire. I know this might be a little off topic, and it really has nothing to do with what the GJO is, because its decided by other masters and such. I'm just trying to play along with the idea that Kieran stated.

[James Prent]

Well, considering the time frame of the NJO from the end of the empire, I doubt it's a stretch. Our masters have been around a comparative amount of time. Just that once people have been RPing that long, sometimes they just stop.

[Kelt Simoson]

Sorry i have not repied to this sooner, gotta' get Kelt back into the swing of things. I think the voting issue is a must, i think thats what the GJO has stood for IC and OOC for a hell of a long time, thats what we're all about.

I also think that if we cut down the number of positions open within the council we give so many less chances to new people in seats. For instance for a heck of a long time now the majority of the council has been well known IC and OOC people but somtimes they can be away for long periods of time and still be elected upon the council the next month just by saying ' i accept the nomination'

And while i accept wholeheartidly that RL always comes first (always been SWfans policy) I think what we need to do is give other people that are active and have time to play a council role a chance. (I personaly own up to the fact that as a councilor i cant consistantly be there because of work and college and other social issues.) Obviously they would need IC to be qualified enough to do what is needed for the job, but i think, and in my honest personal opinion, that is the OOC box thats the problem rather than IC.

I agree with many of the points below, but what i think we need is to sort out who has time to seriously RP a position upon the council before being elected. (Obviously and let me be clear, if something unitentional happends to a council member, meaning they need time to be away for some reason or another, then thats apsaloutly fine) But im talking about busyness rather than anything else.

[James Prent]

Considering that of the current council, 5 of the 7 have been or are MIA and have been almost since they were elected... RL comes first, but I believe that having a policy of replacing MIA council members is a good one.

[Navaria Tarkin]

Just to let you all know... the nominations will begin sometime this weekend :) Council is going to be notched down to 5. Voting is going to be for 3 candidates per voter.

On a side note, thank you for everyone participating in this dicussion. I cannot emphasize what Fig said earlier when this thread was started. This is our home and everyone's voices are needed to be heard to make this place great!

[Kieran Devaneaux]

Even voices that are quiet from time to time. :D

-K.D.