Lets have the convo here instead of buried in a thread. Who would you like to nominate? Should we require seconds? How many should be on it? Etc

I propose the following, albeit obvious, rules to help govern the committee;

They will have no authority to change the text on any card or official game piece.

Only committee members can motion for topics of discussion.

Must have an odd among on said committee.

Well, why not have structure like so:

Supreme Dictator (Drasnighta)

But in all honesty, having an unofficial FAQ team available to generate a consensus prior to FFG providing a ruling (and perhaps motivating that ruling to occur at a more rapid rate) could be a good idea. The best idea I have for setup would be to have a chairperson in charge of taking the questions and organizing the responses, and an even number of other members to vote on which interpretation of the rules works best. Consider this initially:

Chairman

Member

Member

Member

Member

This gives us a system where any 3 of the 4 members can come to a consensus, or if it is split down the middle, the chairman can weigh in to settle the debate. Anything that has significant dissent or the previously mentioned 3/5 split, can be forwarded on to FFG in the hopes of a rapid response.

Regardless of how you structure the committee, the biggest hurdle is going to be who sits, and enforcement.

The determinations, while they will be well reasoned I'm sure, will be nothing more than persuasive to a TO, and won't be binding on the community as a whole.

Also, it will be somewhat exclusive to select people from these forums. The people who populate this site, while probably a large group, is still only a fraction of the people who play Armada. Selecting people from amongst ourselves to offer interim guidance is possibly unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and won't be as far reaching as we would hope.

I think it's a good idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the inherent limitations on what we're suggesting.

If someone does not visit these forums then they will have little need for the committees decisions anyways

To be honest I just hope the people at ffg see this and are like

"uh guys they're part the restless stage, they're organizing....."

Regardless of how you structure the committee, the biggest hurdle is going to be who sits, and enforcement.

The determinations, while they will be well reasoned I'm sure, will be nothing more than persuasive to a TO, and won't be binding on the community as a whole.

Also, it will be somewhat exclusive to select people from these forums. The people who populate this site, while probably a large group, is still only a fraction of the people who play Armada. Selecting people from amongst ourselves to offer interim guidance is possibly unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and won't be as far reaching as we would hope.

I think it's a good idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the inherent limitations on what we're suggesting.

You are correct.

Its not binding on the community, no, but its a framework for direction . The FFG contact page itself tells people to come to the Forums and attempt to get their answers here. Its not binding , no, but it is suggested by FFG themselves. Only if you cannot , are you to contact FFG in turn.

The only problem is, at this point, there is nowhere to find said relevant answers, that aren't buried in pages upon pages of discussion, most of it not even wholly relevant...

I haven't had the time to follow the drama surrounding the non-publication of an FAQ, but this sounds like a good stop-gap solution. I'm happy to participate if asked.

I've got a bad feeling about this

i offer myself as committee clerk. i refuse to vote, but i can offer to create whatever tools to whatever council here formed

for what it is worth, I'm not sure how to create a council or committee without having too many chefs in the kitchen.

a general nomination thread seems like it could get out of control, but transparency is important...

i want to think about this a bit.

We have a system in place, we argue in the rules forum and either find an answer or at the very least find a vague consensous on stopgap rule.

What do you want? A monthly faq release updated to reflect official rulings?

Yeah, no.

Be patient.

Sorry to cross post but when I said this in the other thread I hadn't seen this one yet:

Perhaps since leadership, authority, and consensus are difficulties in having an official unofficial FAQ, the community (or self appointed leaders) could get a sticky thread and publish a concise description of the questions and then provide 1+ rulings along with a concise description of the logic behind each ruling (taken from the thoughts/debates here on this forum). That way multiple voices would be heard in absence of official rulings and stuff is easy to find for those of us that occasionally TO.

The TO would know where to find the questions and debated rulings and pick the one they personally agree with (if there is more than 1). I think that is helpful.

KO, I for one love idea of seeing dissenting opinions of committee members published along side the "ruling"

Well, it can't get any worse than the Rules sub-forum right now. I mean, we have plenty of good discussions (and some not so good), but there is never any consensus. And it's definitely not possible for your average Joe Gamer to find straight answers to his questions (whihc is bad, because FFG suggest going to the Forums first, if you have Questions).

KO, I for one love idea of seeing dissenting opinions of committee members published along side the "ruling"

This would very much be the way to go, with rules cited as well as previous decisions.

The armchair lawyer in me loves it!

Well, it can't get any worse than the Rules sub-forum right now. I mean, we have plenty of good discussions (and some not so good), but there is never any consensus. And it's definitely not possible for your average Joe Gamer to find straight answers to his questions (whihc is bad, because FFG suggest going to the Forums first, if you have Questions).

i feel like, then, this is where the committee, once formed, should start. this is up to the committee itself, though.

KO, I for one love idea of seeing dissenting opinions of committee members published along side the "ruling"

If someone wants to keep a document/forum thread up to date with majority rules and alternatives, then please go ahead.

It cant be someone heavily involved in the discussions as they are too biased to do it.

No need for a committee, the information already exists, its just not easy to sort through.

Can I be the quirky comic relief?

Does it need a committee?

After a discussion, make a new forum topic, (perhaps title starting [vote] or the like), first post is the question, second post is solution 1, third post is solution 2. Leave it for a couple weeks. Most likes is declared winner. Rule is editted in to the Community FAQ.

This can also have rules like first to X likes, need to have a clear difference if Y likes at the time limit, and so on.

All we need is one (or more) active, trusted forum members to make the 'official' vote threads, and to maintain the FAQ.

I like the structures that Biggs and TheCallum mention. I'd be willing to do what needed to be done to support a structure like this. I feel the community as a whole would benefit from it, as well as the FFG folks having some data to base decisions on wouldn't hurt.

This is a good idea, if only to help new players find the information they need. However I'm not sure calling it a committee is right - they're not meeting to deliberate rules per se.

They're more of a team that collects and codifies rules questions, and their possible answers. One person could do it but sharing the workload will help ease the burden and slow the rate of burnout.

I think there is enough interest to put up a nomination thread. I'll get on it.p

I think there is enough interest to put up a nomination thread. I'll get on it.p

Where is the support for nominations or a committee?

I see support for an unofficial rulings tracker, thats it.

Well, why not have structure like so:

Supreme Dictator (Drasnighta)

But in all honesty, having an unofficial FAQ team available to generate a consensus prior to FFG providing a ruling (and perhaps motivating that ruling to occur at a more rapid rate) could be a good idea. The best idea I have for setup would be to have a chairperson in charge of taking the questions and organizing the responses, and an even number of other members to vote on which interpretation of the rules works best. Consider this initially:

Chairman

Member

Member

Member

Member

This gives us a system where any 3 of the 4 members can come to a consensus, or if it is split down the middle, the chairman can weigh in to settle the debate. Anything that has significant dissent or the previously mentioned 3/5 split, can be forwarded on to FFG in the hopes of a rapid response.

Regardless of how you structure the committee, the biggest hurdle is going to be who sits, and enforcement.

The determinations, while they will be well reasoned I'm sure, will be nothing more than persuasive to a TO, and won't be binding on the community as a whole.

Also, it will be somewhat exclusive to select people from these forums. The people who populate this site, while probably a large group, is still only a fraction of the people who play Armada. Selecting people from amongst ourselves to offer interim guidance is possibly unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and won't be as far reaching as we would hope.

I think it's a good idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the inherent limitations on what we're suggesting.

Regardless of how you structure the committee, the biggest hurdle is going to be who sits, and enforcement.

The determinations, while they will be well reasoned I'm sure, will be nothing more than persuasive to a TO, and won't be binding on the community as a whole.

Also, it will be somewhat exclusive to select people from these forums. The people who populate this site, while probably a large group, is still only a fraction of the people who play Armada. Selecting people from amongst ourselves to offer interim guidance is possibly unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and won't be as far reaching as we would hope.

I think it's a good idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the inherent limitations on what we're suggesting.

You are correct.

Its not binding on the community, no, but its a framework for direction . The FFG contact page itself tells people to come to the Forums and attempt to get their answers here. Its not binding , no, but it is suggested by FFG themselves. Only if you cannot , are you to contact FFG in turn.

The only problem is, at this point, there is nowhere to find said relevant answers, that aren't buried in pages upon pages of discussion, most of it not even wholly relevant...

I haven't had the time to follow the drama surrounding the non-publication of an FAQ, but this sounds like a good stop-gap solution. I'm happy to participate if asked.

i offer myself as committee clerk. i refuse to vote, but i can offer to create whatever tools to whatever council here formed

for what it is worth, I'm not sure how to create a council or committee without having too many chefs in the kitchen.

a general nomination thread seems like it could get out of control, but transparency is important...

i want to think about this a bit.

Sorry to cross post but when I said this in the other thread I hadn't seen this one yet:

Perhaps since leadership, authority, and consensus are difficulties in having an official unofficial FAQ, the community (or self appointed leaders) could get a sticky thread and publish a concise description of the questions and then provide 1+ rulings along with a concise description of the logic behind each ruling (taken from the thoughts/debates here on this forum). That way multiple voices would be heard in absence of official rulings and stuff is easy to find for those of us that occasionally TO.

The TO would know where to find the questions and debated rulings and pick the one they personally agree with (if there is more than 1). I think that is helpful.

KO, I for one love idea of seeing dissenting opinions of committee members published along side the "ruling"

Well, it can't get any worse than the Rules sub-forum right now. I mean, we have plenty of good discussions (and some not so good), but there is never any consensus. And it's definitely not possible for your average Joe Gamer to find straight answers to his questions (whihc is bad, because FFG suggest going to the Forums first, if you have Questions).

KO, I for one love idea of seeing dissenting opinions of committee members published along side the "ruling"

This would very much be the way to go, with rules cited as well as previous decisions.

The armchair lawyer in me loves it!

Is that enough gink?

I'd do more but it won't let me.

I look forward to internet arguments regarding the details of creation of the committee to settle internet arguments almost as much as I do the internet arguments about arguing the decisions of the committee to settle internet arguments when the committee to settle internet arguments presents their decision regarding the latest internet argument.