The Energon Pub

I have a question that was sort of brought up earlier. The idea of term limits were brought up. I want to broaden that to how these ambassadors\diplomats will work in general. Is each faction responsible for figuring out how long each representative lasts? Is there a set time for the selection process? I know I would like to see it as a vote but certain factions may have different ideas about selecting them. I understand the general responsibilities but will they be different per faction or the same for each? Would it be safe to assume that the representatives answer to the Mods or how will that work out? Basically I'm asking the overall format for this idea.

i'd love to have a shot at being a diplomat (with me having real world experience in small-town politics LOL).

sumowrestler wrote:I have a question that was sort of brought up earlier. The idea of term limits were brought up. I want to broaden that to how these ambassadors\diplomats will work in general. Is each faction responsible for figuring out how long each representative lasts? Is there a set time for the selection process? I know I would like to see it as a vote but certain factions may have different ideas about selecting them. I understand the general responsibilities but will they be different per faction or the same for each? Would it be safe to assume that the representatives answer to the Mods or how will that work out? Basically I'm asking the overall format for this idea.

I too would like to know more on the overall workings of the Diplomats, but would like to argue for equal term lengths among all factions. Thus giving every individual that plays an equal chance to take an active role. How does 1 or 2 month terms sound, should it be shorter or longer?

Knight Hawk wrote:I too would like to know more on the overall workings of the Diplomats, but would like to argue for equal term lengths among all factions. Thus giving every individual that plays an equal chance to take an active role. How does 1 or 2 month terms sound, should it be shorter or longer?

Nothing is set in stone yet so you all decide

Knight Hawk wrote:

sumowrestler wrote:I have a question that was sort of brought up earlier. The idea of term limits were brought up. I want to broaden that to how these ambassadors\diplomats will work in general. Is each faction responsible for figuring out how long each representative lasts? Is there a set time for the selection process? I know I would like to see it as a vote but certain factions may have different ideas about selecting them. I understand the general responsibilities but will they be different per faction or the same for each? Would it be safe to assume that the representatives answer to the Mods or how will that work out? Basically I'm asking the overall format for this idea.

I too would like to know more on the overall workings of the Diplomats, but would like to argue for equal term lengths among all factions. Thus giving every individual that plays an equal chance to take an active role. How does 1 or 2 month terms sound, should it be shorter or longer?

I think 2 months are enough.

I dunno, I kinda think each faction ought to be able to decide how to choose their diplomats and what kind of term limits (if any at all) they have.

Chaoslock wrote:

Knight Hawk wrote:

sumowrestler wrote:I have a question that was sort of brought up earlier. The idea of term limits were brought up. I want to broaden that to how these ambassadors\diplomats will work in general. Is each faction responsible for figuring out how long each representative lasts? Is there a set time for the selection process? I know I would like to see it as a vote but certain factions may have different ideas about selecting them. I understand the general responsibilities but will they be different per faction or the same for each? Would it be safe to assume that the representatives answer to the Mods or how will that work out? Basically I'm asking the overall format for this idea.

I too would like to know more on the overall workings of the Diplomats, but would like to argue for equal term lengths among all factions. Thus giving every individual that plays an equal chance to take an active role. How does 1 or 2 month terms sound, should it be shorter or longer?

I think 2 months are enough.

I'd say 3 months, that way it's every quarter of the year.

Deadboy wrote:I dunno, I kinda think each faction ought to be able to decide how to choose their diplomats and what kind of term limits (if any at all) they have.

I'm not going to dictate anything or try to tell you guys what to do on this but I would highly recommend putting some kind of time limit on it just because its a great way to get more people involved in your faction whether its through them becoming the diplomats or just getting involved in the voting.

I would say one or two months would be a touch short. It would really depend on how much is going on in HMW. Three months would give enough time for something to come up. I'm just curious as to where they will fit within the factions' heirachy. I'm picturing for the Maximals a little pyramid. We have OP on top and then GP and I. The only reason OP is on top is that he has access to the leader forum where most of this type of discussion happens. The representatives would then report to us first and then to the rest of the Maximals which would put them under us. One thing I would like to think about is that no one person can selected twice in a row to allow others to have chance to be involved. I'm still a little unsure on what this United Faction Council is all about though. A clarification on that would be nice.

I like the 3 months too it makes it 4 a year

Symbiote Spiderman14 wrote:I like the 3 months too it makes it 4 a year

I'd say make the limits in weeks. Say sync it up to the circulation of a particular Rare alt or something. That way it'll be easy to keep track of.

So long as the Alt Rotator doesn't break of course.

I wanna be a leader, sign me up...err vote for me (or I'll stasis lock all y'all)

Caelus wrote:

Symbiote Spiderman14 wrote:I like the 3 months too it makes it 4 a year

I'd say make the limits in weeks. Say sync it up to the circulation of a particular Rare alt or something. That way it'll be easy to keep track of.

So long as the Alt Rotator doesn't break of course.

I think it might have to depend on how often these diplomatic get togethers occur. If they occur on a regular basis, then a couple of weeks would make sense. However, if they only happen once a month or so, it would be better to have longer terms. There's no point electing someone as a diplomat if they're not going to have a chance to do anything.

Caelus wrote:

Symbiote Spiderman14 wrote:I like the 3 months too it makes it 4 a year

I'd say make the limits in weeks. Say sync it up to the circulation of a particular Rare alt or something. That way it'll be easy to keep track of.

So long as the Alt Rotator doesn't break of course.

I appreciate the idea of trying to keep a game feel to it Caelus but basing the timing on something like that is that we don't know the rotation of those alts. I think the current rotation is every two weeks but we don't know how often certain alts come up. Then there is a problem of people like me who very rarely changes their alt modes so we may lose track or not even notice that a particular alt mode has come and gone. If we attach this to a particular day in the calendar, like first of every three months or something like that, than that will be easier to keep track of and more universal.

Lord Straxus wrote:

Caelus wrote:

Symbiote Spiderman14 wrote:I like the 3 months too it makes it 4 a year

I'd say make the limits in weeks. Say sync it up to the circulation of a particular Rare alt or something. That way it'll be easy to keep track of.

So long as the Alt Rotator doesn't break of course.

I think it might have to depend on how often these diplomatic get togethers occur. If they occur on a regular basis, then a couple of weeks would make sense. However, if they only happen once a month or so, it would be better to have longer terms. There's no point electing someone as a diplomat if they're not going to have a chance to do anything.

No no, I wasn't saying "weeks" as in less than a month, I meant that it should be established as, say, 8 or 12 weeks instead of 2 or 3 months.

sumowrestler wrote:I think the current rotation is every two weeks but we don't know how often certain alts come up.

That part isn't a secret AFAIK. I don't remember for sure, but OS or Mkall could tell you the relative frequencies of the common/uncommon/rare alts.

Caelus wrote:

Lord Straxus wrote:

Caelus wrote:

Symbiote Spiderman14 wrote:I like the 3 months too it makes it 4 a year

I'd say make the limits in weeks. Say sync it up to the circulation of a particular Rare alt or something. That way it'll be easy to keep track of.

So long as the Alt Rotator doesn't break of course.

I think it might have to depend on how often these diplomatic get togethers occur. If they occur on a regular basis, then a couple of weeks would make sense. However, if they only happen once a month or so, it would be better to have longer terms. There's no point electing someone as a diplomat if they're not going to have a chance to do anything.

No no, I wasn't saying "weeks" as in less than a month, I meant that it should be established as, say, 8 or 12 weeks instead of 2 or 3 months.

Ohhh

Well in that case, excuse my misunderstanding.

I personally think that a 3 month rotation would work well. Especially if there was one new person added each month. That would allow for some continuity and mentoring of someone into the role and not allowing one faction to be taken advantage of due to a new leadership. First day of a month, someone new goes in. This should make the time frames easy to remember as well.

Ok Caelus, if we go with your idea, then which alt would we choose? I don't remember the list for each faction and I would be surprised if there was one rare alt that is common within all of the factions. If there was, would it be on the same rotation for everyone?

Omega Sentinel wrote:

Deadboy wrote:I dunno, I kinda think each faction ought to be able to decide how to choose their diplomats and what kind of term limits (if any at all) they have.

I'm not going to dictate anything or try to tell you guys what to do on this but I would highly recommend putting some kind of time limit on it just because its a great way to get more people involved in your faction whether its through them becoming the diplomats or just getting involved in the voting.

I just had to emphasise that little bit, because to me getting more people involved is more important than a faction having a winning strategy.

That's why I would also recommend three months, for both "leaders" and "diplomats", with a big tournament scheduled at the end of each term. Giving both leaders and diplomats a great way to prove their worth.

Burn wrote:That's why I would also recommend three months, for both "leaders" and "diplomats", with a big tournament scheduled at the end of each term. Giving both leaders and diplomats a great way to prove their worth.

Forget that. Use the tourney to decide the next leadership council.

Killjoy wrote:Forget that. Use the tourney to decide the next leadership council.

I wondered how long it would take a CON to say that .


3 months sounds good to me aswell. I also think it could be good to have like 2 diplomats from each faction and 1 from the faction's subgroup, as the 3 diplomats each term or something. Could represent everybody that way within the faction.

raphaelprime wrote:

Killjoy wrote:Forget that. Use the tourney to decide the next leadership council.

I wondered how long it would take a CON to say that .


3 months sounds good to me aswell. I also think it could be good to have like 2 diplomats from each faction and 1 from the faction's subgroup, as the 3 diplomats each term or something. Could represent everybody that way within the faction.

Well, I would hope that any sub-factions that exist wouldn't be so cut off from the rest of the faction that they would need to be represented separately. If the sub-faction is that disjointed from its faction, then their is probably something wrong with it. Assuming I understood what you were saying.

Yoru Ookami wrote:Well, I would hope that any sub-factions that exist wouldn't be so cut off from the rest of the faction that they would need to be represented separately. If the sub-faction is that disjointed from its faction, then their is probably something wrong with it. Assuming I understood what you were saying.

Well said.

I'm fairly certain that sub-factions will be using the resources of the main faction so when it comes to leadership, negotiations, asset allocation etc, main faction will ALWAYS need to come before a sub-faction.

And of course that's why any non-sub-faction diplomats chosen need to be chosen on the basis that they will represent main AND sub-factions as a whole.

Yoru Ookami wrote:

raphaelprime wrote:

Killjoy wrote:Forget that. Use the tourney to decide the next leadership council.

I wondered how long it would take a CON to say that .


3 months sounds good to me aswell. I also think it could be good to have like 2 diplomats from each faction and 1 from the faction's subgroup, as the 3 diplomats each term or something. Could represent everybody that way within the faction.

Well, I would hope that any sub-factions that exist wouldn't be so cut off from the rest of the faction that they would need to be represented separately. If the sub-faction is that disjointed from its faction, then their is probably something wrong with it. Assuming I understood what you were saying.

Yeah. This is getting into some questionable territory. If the subfactions start becoming disconnected from the faction diplomatically that kind of defeats the community purpose of the subfaction


EDIT - Holy crap it looks like I actually agreed with Burn on something. Someone take notes

Yoru Ookami wrote:Well, I would hope that any sub-factions that exist wouldn't be so cut off from the rest of the faction that they would need to be represented separately. If the sub-faction is that disjointed from its faction, then their is probably something wrong with it. Assuming I understood what you were saying.

Nah, what im saying is that i think there should be 1 from the subfaction in there so that if theres a serious discussion that involves something within only the subfaction, the other 2 may not be a part of the subfaction and may not know how the subfaction stands on the view.

Like you wouldn't take 3 people from the north and go to the UN, you would take(hopefully) 1 person from the north, 1 from the south, and 1 from the west coast, making sure your faction has equal representation for all its areas.

Hopefully that makes it a little more clear of what im trying to say.


-edit- i completely agree btw on the problems comming from subfactions being disconnected from the main factions. im trying to express this idea as like an 'equal representation for all parts of the faction' sort of way