How can the game be run by players?

[VT2]

When a player runs the game, we get the obvious problems of 'friends' cashing in 'favors.'

That's why those who shoulder the burden of running the game should stay out of it.

[Palem]

When a player runs the game, we get the obvious problems of 'friends' cashing in 'favors.'

^This. And even if it isn't happening, people are going to assume it's happening and be pissed anyway.

You're better off not being as involved.

[Catwalk]

I agree about the potential for nepotism if we were talking about matters like cheating detection and general support. Under the democratic proposals above, support/maintenance/finances/advertising would stay with OMAC. I don't see much potential for nepotism if it's solely a question of game changes.

I agree with Smitty's points about short-term and long-term prospects.

[Realest]

this topic is an amazing attempt at troll.

[freemehul]

When a player runs the game, we get the obvious problems of 'friends' cashing in 'favors.'

That's why those who shoulder the burden of running the game should stay out of it.

again that'll be silly and so can't agree with that

[Ironballs]

The game needs a clear design direction which is something it hasn't had in years. What that should be though isn't necessarily obvious. I don't have any idea what sort of business model Utopia would have to run under now and even how big the potential market is these days. These sort of things have to come from the people running the game. Contrary to some of the stuff I see on these forums you can't just spank out some marketing and have a 100k user base again tomorrow :P

I know what direction I'd take the game in but really any sort of committee just waters down everything and ends up doing nothing via compromise. You also get back to the same problems Zauper raised of how you decide who should make suggestions. You want someone know knows what they are talking about so you need someone that knows what they are talking about to select someone that knows what they are talking about and if you have that in the first place why bother? Or you could just lend up with patients running the asylum.

I think the best thing that can be done by the player base to try and help those running it who obviously haven't played before or got a lot of experience is to make posts that try to get them at least thinking about the right issues in the right way. Sadly there is a lot of stupidity and "my way is best because it's the only way lalalalalalalalala" on the forums but you can always hope they pick out the nuggets from the dung pile.

[Sweetiepie]

I agree about the potential for nepotism if we were talking about matters like cheating detection and general support. Under the democratic proposals above, support/maintenance/finances/advertising would stay with OMAC. I don't see much potential for nepotism if it's solely a question of game changes.

I personally wouldn't like anything to stay with OMAC if we are talking about a wish list. There is no single area in which they have demonstrated either competence or good stewardship.

[Smitty]

^This. And even if it isn't happening, people are going to assume it's happening and be pissed anyway.

You're better off not being as involved.

That would depend on the business sense of the 'owner'. I would agree that they probably shouldn't play, but the reason I said it's a moot point is that if they decide they want to, then they will. If they are an intelligent business person looking to maximize their profit, while at the same time being cognizant of the needs of the community, then they would do so anonymously.

[Catwalk]

I'm far more concerned about an owner not playing the game than an owner playing the game. The consequences of not playing are far greater than minor risks of nepotism.

[Zarnium]

You cannot be impartial without not playing the game.

[Catwalk]

Sweetiepie, even if we're talking about a wish list I don't think it'd be wise to change support and financial functions. Coding functions can be changed if OMAC are willing to hire different coders, and they wouldn't have to be players.

[User1041]

Dictatorship: Sounds like what we have now... OMAC in charge and we have no say in what happens.

I voted for Pure democracy because that is the only way that will really work IMHO...

[Catwalk]

User1041, Dictatorship worked fine under Mehul as long as he cared. And even after he stopped caring, the game was still leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

I don't think the first option is practical, voting about all kinds of stuff all the time would sicken people and turnout would likely be low. Why do you think it's better than the alternatives?