Finally something moving...
But it's a bit complicated, when all really was needed common sense. Of course without the balancing act by Gipfel "we don't have a mandate" for this, but no worries about mandates about others stuff it would have been even easier. But of course even with him shooting himself and more importantly the game in the foot, all that was needed really was common sense. It's not only about fairplay, but about mandates, legitimization in general.
But Buhmann stated in 2016 regarding the transition from Flash to a new technology that “it is not little work. If we do it, we should combine it with some other changes in terms of graphic or/and playing. Otherwise, it is not very motivating just to translate it”.
Legimitiziation in general, which you clearly understand, but why "sneak it in" in a fairplay solution discussion? Just make it general. And no need for some indirect mandate from Buhmann either really. Straight talk beats weaseling each time.
The common sense argument is very short and concise, very un-RKL-like:
Past situations:
Buhmann owner+gamerunner. Leso helping sidekick.
Buhmann owner. Luques gamerunner with explicit mandates, no sidekick (big mistake)
Now:
Luques owner+holy trinity as gamerunners without clear mandate, beyond deflashifying the game.
Now after a few months the situation of the status quo the situation becomes clear: Luques is an absentee owner. That means that the gamerunners automatically get a mandate. They can run the game as they see fit. Main work still react, but also stuff like NC and FPC clearly part of their implicit mandate. And that includes new developments too (Mostly in the future due to the ongoing react work) Of course the average user will hope that they will run it in the same spirit as Buhmann but also Luques, that means keeping the community involved, getting ideas from the community, check with the community if anybody sees problems, has a better solution. While Buhmann and Luques of course still had the last say, took the final decisions. But that is the holy trinity's choice now, if they want to run it differently that's their prerogative. What shouldn't happen though is introducing something and only mention it in some race chats.... as already has happened sadly.
But common sense (sadly lacking in at least part of the trinity) says they are the game runners and don't really need votes, legitimation for every little thing.
But ok we have it for the FPC: Let's see what we can find to complain:
Note: As developers, we plan a long-term solution, in which team attacks are automatically detected and/or automatically resolved by the game’s km-by-km progress.
Who wrote this post? FL is not a developer. As for automatization, I see it as very super hyper mega low important. Or possibly not needed. Make players take responsability too some times. Team attack, don't just whine and whine, if the perpetrator doesn't react put a guy in tempo for the good of the game and fairness.
FPC work etc:
FPC Members have several rights (and duties) to enforce fairplay rules. They may open a fairplay thread, moderate a fairplay thread, propose a penalty and vote for a penalty. The game developers generally follow the FPC discussions and execute its decisions in the database. They also preserve the right to halt, postpone or veto a decision in the exceptional case that it cannot be implemented technically or poses problems for the game’s existence or further development.
Basically that means the holy trinity takes over the job from Leso/Luques? Pushing the final button and having veto right? The system doesn't change? IMO a good system actually, possibly see problems with 2 of the developers being members of the FPC too, the double role is a bit weird.
- Hearing: The FPC opens an ingame hearing for the involved parties in which they can give their opinion/view about the fairplay issue.
That's new right? So far was forum only. Correct?
- Decide about a fairplay case: As soon as possible, but within 7 days, a decision is made by the FPC internally and then communicated in the respective fair play thread.
While I see the point in making the whole thing faster than it used to be, I'm not completely sure if a hard deadline is always sensible/possible. Members on holiday that can't fulfill their duties, a complicated case...
What is missing in the mode of operation part is: (or maybe some other parts)
-FPC members keep the votes of other members internal, they don't divulge FPC discussions to others. An unnecessary rule you'd think, but since we had Gipfelstuermer going public with things he didn't agree with
TWICE it's definitely necessary to write it down. Ok, now that he has 1/3 of the veto power as well maybe he'll get his way and won't feel the need to break the trust of his subordinates, oh sorry, colleagues anymore.
- FPC members are required to be active in the forum. In the old FPC you only ever heard from Gipfel, for the rest you never got any comments answers etc.
- Changing, re-appointment of members once a year? Like Luques I think tried to do for a while? Or when, how often, how? (Appointment by the holy trinity IMO makes sense)
Members: I could start objecting, but for the moment let it be....
Nice to see that FL has agreed to put laziness aside and accept an official role in the FPC! Had just written a long text why he should be in, but then realized he actually is.... good good!