Subject: "Oh noes, Here I goes... again. " Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #34861
Show all folders

StunnaThu 19-Aug-10 02:50 PM
Member since 04th Mar 2003
1048 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM
#34861, "Oh noes, Here I goes... again. "


          

So here I am with more unsolicited advice. I should know better.

It seems to me that, in the grand scheme of things, what CF lacks most is a Vision. That is to say that there isn't a figurehead who is standing up and saying, "Look everyone, THIS is where we are going!" This is who we want to play CF, this is when we want them to play, this is how we want them to play, this is what they'll do when they are on the MUD, we want this many of them with at least this many actively doing this. Further, we want this many areas that look like this, this many areas that look like that, and a pantheon composed of people who are like this, who work areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Etc. etc.

So you have a where we are, and you have a where we want to be. Then you figure out the steps that close the gap. If you're not willing to take the steps you re-evaluate. But then it makes it really easy to understand who *doesn't* fit. It gets easy to cut out things, whatever they may be, that don't fit with the Vision.

It seems like no one ever knows the steps to take, exactly, to realize the MUDs potential. Not because we don't have the intellectual capital to figure it out, but just because no one has identified where we're going.

Over the years it's always seemed that each individual tries to turn CF into what they want it to be... both players and staff, both high and low levels. This, at times, sends people pulling in opposite directions.

Maybe you can't really make this work because it's volunteer run and all that. I understand that, probably better now that I tried my own hand at motivating the collective to do anything. It's a tough ship to keep afloat, never mind steer.

And as I write in my stream of consciousness I also question whether or not CF's greatest downfall is what we all consider it's greatest asset - that it's free. Money motivates people to do unfun work - and on CF no one wants to do what isn't fun.

It would be interesting to know how much donation capital rolls in per active player - so that one could figure out how many active players would be needed to support an actual paid director. Meh, that's probably not a good idea... I mean, who would hire the director? Heh.

CF seems like it could hit a place that makes me wonder if it will have the resources to ever make a comeback. Everyone's interest is waning to some degree, and we aren't nurturing the next generation to keep the damn thing going.

Warning, just my THOUGHT, not saying it's a smart idea, but... I'd almost like to see Valg, or Daev or Zhulg or anyone just say: "This F'N thing is MINE, and we're doing it MY way and if you don't like that get OUT." At least then we'd have legit leadership, and we could know if we agreed or disagreed.

In general, I think that organizations (companies, whatever) this small don't run well with a lot of chiefs and no indians. And, I guess, there is a reason why publicly traded companies have CEOs.

Where does the buck stop in CF, anyway? What's out outcome here? What's the Vision?

Not sure we'll ever know.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

ValguarneraThu 19-Aug-10 06:48 PM
Member since 04th Mar 2003
6904 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list
#34873, "Hierarchy vs. consensus: "
In response to Reply #0


          

Over the years it's always seemed that each individual tries to turn CF into what they want it to be... both players and staff, both high and low levels. This, at times, sends people pulling in opposite directions.

I don't necessarily agree with some of your points, but I wanted to say that I'd agree here.

There are perks to that system-- notably, people can largely confine effort into things they enjoy doing, and that highly creative projects are often well-led by a single person with a clear vision.

Obviously, there are costs-- people can work at cross purposes (with the staff, largely unintentionally historically), and large projects that need a ton of manpower are difficult to muster.

But when you're dealing with volunteers, you can only make things so hierarchical. I think our system has generally been a compromise between the efficiency of a military structure and the flexibility of a looser organization.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #34861 Previous topic | Next topic