FCAL Proposal Announced at GoMe

[ghaelen]

Quoting Andylegate

As far as the where to go to apply for the FCAL, that's something that has not been worked out yet. 2 reasons for that: becasue one is for placing the AGe on the ULM, and the other is for MORE. The first one, some ideas were kicked around about making it to where you apply for your FCAL via the ULM in the first place. But that's something that Trylon or the others might know better. What I do know is that it was something that was left open because, A) we don't know the answer to, and B) Fans here can make suggestions for that.

Thank you Andy, for that very thorough answer. This bit really clears up the confusion.
Here might be a suggestion for the panel to think about regarding submissions.

A: a short form on the MOUL site for people to fill out, something like the form we could fill out for community events. This gets forwarded to the designated panel member if the proposal is clearly age or story.
B: I would expect the panel will have a place they meet/post/communicate as a body, and perhaps mixed proposals could be submitted there. Or, the panel could rotate which member accepted mixed proposals and those could be submitted via email or the panel could visit a password protected web page with the storyboard on it. Those things can be worked out over time -- it was the initial step in the process I was curious about.

[andylegate]

I'm easy with either way: Appointees or Elections, as long as said elections are internal to each guild on the panel (IE Writers would vote for the Writer members, Maintainers for their members, etc, etc).

The problem that some are having with the Appointee idea, is that, well basically a mater of trust. They don't trust their Guild Leaders to appoint people. Never mind the fact that this panel has to be rotated and that different people can be appointed all the time.

So we see what the Majority wants I guess. If the Majority is for elections, then we try to come up with a process for that. If Cyan says "No." to that, then we go with the appointment idea. Sorry, but for those that say they know better than Cyan, please show everyone your different games that you've published that were just as successful as Myst, Riven, Myst III, IV, V and Uru itself. Then I'll believe you know better than Cyan. This is their show. They make the calls. Not us.

In any case, we still need people to want this to work, else we all might as well pack up our things and go home. Cyan has said that much too.

:shrugging: it will either work, or it won't. I just hope we don't see it not work because people that tear it down. I'd rather it not work because there was not enough interest, or because Cyan wins the lotto and creates a different big project, or something like that. Or because fuel costs go up so much that even Cyan can't afford the electricity for their servers.....

[Zardoz]

As a former Unelected Dictator, let me give you some unsolicited advice: Just pick a system, but give that system a one year sunset clause. The debates I'm seeing here and on other forums have the same undercurrent: Fear of Power. People are afraid that these panels and decisions will wield power over the "community," and are reacting to that fear. But the real secret to developing primordial governance institutions is to make them flexible, because you will never get it right the first time. As long as the system you choose has a good chance of getting closer to right the second time, and the third, etc., then you can assuage most people's fears yet still move forward. One of the best ways to do this is with a sunset clause. It gives the best guess system a chance to prove itself, or go down in flames, and provides people with actual experience rather than imagined disasters. Yes, it opens the whole can of worms again after the sun sets, but if the system's good, the naysayers will be quieter and the supporters will have the evidence they need to support renewal. And seriously, what horrible things can happen in one year even with a mediocre system in place?

[andylegate]

A: a short form on the MOUL site for people to fill out, something like the form we could fill out for community events. This gets forwarded to the designated panel member if the proposal is clearly age or story.

You know, that begs another question that's been bugging me: MOUL Forum, what happens to it with MORE online?

Will it become the MORE forum? Will it become something else? Or will they create a new forum?

Ah, see, private discussions or not, we don't have all the answers.....guess I'll have to use my shoe phone and ask about that...hehehe.

[BladeLakem]

So, the FCAL under discussion is just about Uru:CC Ages and ULM distribution, which makes perfect sense.

Let me see if I understand. The 'oversight' aspects of this are the Writer asking for a building permit (an FCAL) with a proposal of some sort. If they get it, then they build their Age and resubmit it for verification. And if it reviewed and verified, the Writer has the legal right to distribute via ULM?

From that angle, story conflicts aren't an issue. Ages through ULM don't take part in the central story line, as I understand it. So how well the age fits into canon or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the Age doesn't break FCAL rules. And the Maintainers will do some QA on top of it, it sounds like.

I really think that this discussion should be separate from how Ages are handled in MORE. The two concepts are getting conflated pretty regularly. MORE is going to require an entirely different tack. Any process will have to deal with several aspects separately: 1) Is the Age stable enough to be on MORE? 2) Does the Age cause legal issues (due to copyright infringement, inappropriate content, etc)? 3) Does the Age conflict with Canon with other, pre-existing, fan story?

The first is technical - testing and debugging needs to be done, technical requirements have to be met (whatever those happen to be to make sure the age works properly). The second is operational and more legal. The third is really about the fiction itself - adding to and altering story line. All of those require approaches with different considerations.

And they beg larger questions. How do new Ages in MORE actually work? That'll dictate what needs to be checked before they can be uploaded. What does the Maintainer approval really mean? That'll dictate what needs to be looked at and who need to be involved. Can Ages alter canon or create story, and if so, by how much? That'll tell us the role of story in the approval process. What about non-Age content (items, journals, fan-driven story, etc)? There may be approval processes or other mechanisms needed to handle those.

Overall, we can't start developing a process for approval of UCC for MORE until we have an idea of where we are going. That needs to be hammered out first, between the Writers, the Maintainers, the Archivists and Cyan.

[Paradox]

Part of the FCA itself states that your storyline must not conflict with Cyan's official storyline. If Cyan adds something to their storyline, it is "fact". If you release an Age, your Age must always be in-line with Cyan's storyline. If Cyan adds or changes their storyline, it is your responsibility to alter your Age to match their new sotryline.

This is part of the FCA license from Cyan.

[andylegate]

So, the FCAL under discussion is just about Uru:CC Ages and ULM distribution, which makes perfect sense.

Yes and No.

Sorry, I can hear the groaning of confusion.

It's for the Uru:CC method of Fan Ages, yes. However, it is also a suggestion to act as a spring board for MORE later on. First we get the Uru:CC method up and running, and work out all the kinks. Then we will know better how to help Cyan.

Obviously we can't use the EXACT same method for MORE. But Cyan felt it was a good starting point to look at. Don't worry. UCC for MORE is way down the road.

[MustardJeep]

@ Pappou

Voting is possible.

The best bet for a vote to elect people with a simple forum poll is something like I have outlined below.

Set a brief nomination period with a cutoff on nominations based on how many entries you can shoe horn into a poll. Once the poll is over the person with the top number goes to the panel, ties go to the Guild leadership to break no discussion no debate. If you didn't get nominated in time to make the poll that is entirely your fault, endless write in votes, debates, and continual debate circling the issues as someone who hasn't been active in a month chimes in to have their opinion heard at the last moment restarting all the debates are counter productive.

I will urge all Panel elections have the same end date, If a guild can't get their act together enough to finish their vote on time that Guild forfeits their vote to their Leadership.

I say this thinking of the interlocking debates, votes, and re votes as the GoW leadership was elected. I also say this thinking of the bitter fighting and flaming that went on with the messengers during their own form up as a Guild. This will be a mundane and very routine duty that will keep coming around triggering another election every couple of months. If you can't understand that after days of people saying it in various wordings you need to stop and speak with your guild leaders until you understand.

[teedyo]

Guess I should clarify my thought on elections. By "general"; I was implying members of the guild rather than just by the councilors/Gms and not the 'general public'. Nominations, acceptance, seconds and all that. So I guess, 'internal'.

This also brings up a small side issue. The GoW is open to anyone; even members of other guilds. As a 'what if': What if Andy was nominated by the GoW and the GoMa? Hey, I consider him a honorary/honorable member. People who've been around would know that his heart lies with the GoMa and (probably)wouldn't nominate him for the GoW(sorry man) but, what of members of short duration when they see him doing all of this age building and community service? I'm not getting to the point very well... Here we go. What if someone were to be nominated by more than one guild? How would it be determined for which guild he/she would run? By the nominee's own abstention from one or the other; or some formal criteria? Note that I'm not proposing the restriction of entry into the GoW; just tossing out a question.

[ghaelen]

So, the FCAL under discussion is just about Uru:CC Ages and ULM distribution, which makes perfect sense.

Yes and No.

Sorry, I can hear the groaning of confusion.

It's for the Uru:CC method of Fan Ages, yes. However, it is also a suggestion to act as a spring board for MORE later on. First we get the Uru:CC method up and running, and work out all the kinks. Then we will know better how to help Cyan.

Obviously we can't use the EXACT same method for MORE. But Cyan felt it was a good starting point to look at. Don't worry. UCC for MORE is way down the road.

**ghaelen stops groaning**

Actually, I found the thread on the Maintainer's site, and I see you are being run ragged between the two. I am reading up on this over there, which is about each process and how they differ. I think I understand all/most/some/not very many of the distinctions now.