Player Council 2nd Term: Weekly Updates

dadofwildthang

Phrourach
thank you to those that went into the Council debacle, you tried

I had a counselor who told me.."..one hand clapping achieves nothing"
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
thanks for the update, @Kal Gordon
also thanks to your fellow gpc mates from this and last term
you helped establish better communication between players from all the markets as well as try to bring player-centered issues to the front
much appreciated
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
@FutbolTango:
  • You started your post with a statement that you love winding me up. Given that it matches up perfectly with practically all of your posts on this thread, it's the logical conclusion.
  • If "The Empire" refers to anyone who disagrees with you and is therefore supposedly automatically evil and wrong, then I suppose it technically exists. If you're implying there's some sort of Grepolis Illuminati, then you're wrong.
  • You have come up with zero evidence of any sort that the council is what caused the GPC to collapse, rather than any issue on Inno's side. This is the issue with basically all your arguments: there's no evidence that truly backs up your claims. It either doesn't exist, is altered (or completely reversed) so that it supposedly supports your opinions, or doesn't actually prove what you claim that it proves. You have a long-standing grudge against me from En94, when we refused to be muscled out by your arrogant and aggressive posting style, and exposed some of your lies. If you want to continue your grudge, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But I would request that you stop intentionally messing up a serious forum thread.
Dear Kal,
1) I can see that you want to believe that this is grudge. I do not have one as we handily defeated your mega coalition of alliances. If anything, your posts gave us further ammunition in our campaign. You were defeated in the military and diplomatic front, and our propaganda in the forums assisted with these objectives.

2) The evidence has been provided by you. I have read your posts. You engaged in constant trifling and passive-aggressive commentary towards the staff. Discussing minor issues and wasting their time. I could see it coming, but you guys kept going for it. It is a low level of maturity to always blame the other party and do not take responsability for your own role in a failed enterprise. This term killed and destroyed a nice initiative. You have to honour your part on the debacle.

3) "The Empire" is alive and well, but it also has received sound defeats in various fronts and a few worlds. This is why we keep resisting it.
The Evil Empire is a universal order that accepts no boundaries or limits and tries to impose itself. Its tactics, strategies, and views are pushed as universal truths and the ones that oppose them are publicized as dubious, treacherous, or dangerous. The problem with the Evil Empire, and hence the word Evil, is that is destroying the spirit of the game with its tendency to have vast conglomerates of players and alliances, and its tendency to spoil endgames with the shameful practices of crown sharing and world wonder self destruction. The effects of the Evil Empire are there, thus, it exists.

4) The REALITY is that YOU were advocating for a specific group of players and their interest. The staff quickly picked on it, and hence wisely dismantled the project. This is Victory for those who oppose the empire and a defeat for the agents of the empire.
 
Last edited:

dadofwildthang

Phrourach
Dear Kal,
1) I can see that you want to believe that this is grudge. I do not have one as we handily defeated your mega coalition of alliances. If anything, your posts gave us further ammunition in our campaign. You were defeated in the military and diplomatic front, and our propaganda in the forums assisted with these objectives.

2) The evidence has been provided by you. I have read your posts. You engaged in constant trifling and passive-aggressive commentary towards the staff. Discussing minor issues and wasting their time. I could see it coming, but you guys kept going for it. It is a low level of maturity to always blame the other party and do not take responsability for your own role in a failed enterprise. This term killed and destroyed a nice initiative. You have to honour your part on the debacle.

3) "The Empire" is alive and well, but it also has received sound defeats in various fronts and a few worlds. This is why we keep resisting it.
The Evil Empire is a universal order that accepts no boundaries or limits and tries to impose itself. Its tactics, strategies, and views are pushed as universal truths and the ones that oppose them are publicized as dubious, treacherous, or dangerous. The problem with the Evil Empire, and hence the word Evil, is that is destroying the spirit of the game with its tendency to have vast conglomerates of players and alliances, and its tendency to spoil endgames with the shameful practices of crown sharing and world wonder self destruction. The effects of the Evil Empire are there, thus, it exists.

4) The REALITY is that YOU were advocating for a specific group of players and their interest. The staff quickly picked on it, and hence wisely dismantled the project. This is Victory for those who oppose the empire and a defeat for the agents of the empire.
this BS is the reason I asked for a dis-like button.. @FutbolTango is unable to stop from new personal attacks wrt to the same old crap
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
dear, @FutbolTango, this is exactly the opposite of the words that came out of the LCM's mouth directly if you even read her posts
doubt you did
whether you call it a grudge or a bias, your personal vendetta against a player and former council member has moved from the game to affected (and infected) this entire forum
you once apologized to many, but that was obviously insincere
i hope those at inno, you praise so much, see how deleterious you are to this community and censor you
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Dear Rachel,
Dissent is very important. It is part of the democratic process and what keeps progress even if it is annoying.
I am articulating a valid view, which is that the members of the most recent council have to take responsability on the outcome. I know that this annoying to you and Kal and many others, but you have to look in the mirror and asses what you did to make this enterprise to fail.
In my view, Kal's behaviour and intransigency was part of the problem as well as his partisan agenda. I am entitled to an opinion even if most of you do not like it. On this issue, I do not blame InnoGames staff. They have tried.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
futbol-
the LCM specifically said she did not have time to do this project and that she was responsible for it not continuing
PERIOD
do i have to c/p here for you to read it?
again, she says the gpc did their jobs
the members took the opinions of ALL members of the community to inno
just because the outcome was not what you wanted, doesn't mean they didn't take your opinions to them
many of us did not see thing happen that we liked
remember that issues in other markets often outweighed what EN wanted
the first gpc group spoke of this as well... go back and read their updates
that's the way democracy works as you point out
so again, for you to be hypocritical and blame the wrong ppl (kal) makes every single one of your posts invalid and a grudge
it may be your opinion but it doesn't make it true
for you to say inno staff tried when the LCM specifically says she is at fault is just rubbish
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
futbol-
the LCM specifically said she did not have time to do this project and that she was responsible for it not continuing
PERIOD
do i have to c/p here for you to read it?
again, she says the gpc did their jobs
the members took the opinions of ALL members of the community to inno
just because the outcome was not what you wanted, doesn't mean they didn't take your opinions to them
many of us did not see thing happen that we liked
remember that issues in other markets often outweighed what EN wanted
the first gpc group spoke of this as well... go back and read their updates
that's the way democracy works as you point out
so again, for you to be hypocritical and blame the wrong ppl (kal) makes every single one of your posts invalid and a grudge
it may be your opinion but it doesn't make it true
for you to say inno staff tried when the LCM specifically says she is at fault is just rubbish
This is YOUR opinion and assessment. I do see and assess the situation in a different manner.
We can agree to disagree.
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
@FutbolTango:
  1. You keep bringing up that world's events as "evidence" as to why I was supposedly as a council member. That makes it extremely obvious that at least part of your criticism is based on a personal grudge rather than objective issues.
  2. I think anyone would be a little bit passive-aggressive if they volunteered their time to help on a project (which was partially to improve InnoGames' public image), and were then ignored. Any irritation only occurred after staff started to abandon us or show a complete lack of effort in solving easy issues. As for topics, we attempted to address a wide range of topics, from long-standing controversial issues such as spam (which a significant portion of the vocal community have been requesting fixes to for a long time), to short-term fixes to ensure that achievements were made in the somewhat limited contact we had with staff at times. If we had made no achievements in our term, I feel that you would have criticised us even more (if that is possible).
  3. This "Evil Empire" still only exists as your label for anyone who disagrees with you. Interestingly, all the tactics that you label as "evil", are those you've employed (or proudly been a part of teams that have employed) in the past. I'm perfectly happy to have a sensible debate with someone, but when they insist on making every argument personal and attacking facts, it becomes a little difficult.
  4. As I've stated before, I have tried to represent a variety of views based on my experience, and the experience of those who have discussed their feelings with me. A balanced viewpoint would be a lot easier to achieve with a fully-active council, but unfortunately we have not had that luxury this term. Between the council members from different markets, we have done our best.
  • Opposition is important. But when it is vindictive, unnecessarily aggressive opposition, it is not constructive.
  • The LCM has stated that the GPC was shut down due to a lack of time. This was showcased in screenshots (that we were given permission to share) of the LCM's responses, posted in my final update. You appear to have intentionally avoided that post in order to make some of your points. Time being the issue is evident in the fact that they were taking longer and longer to respond. If you don't believe in that, then look at the DevBlog. The DevBlog was not directly related to the GPC, yet it was shut down at a similar time to when the GPC started to receive less commitment from staff, by the same staff that were involved with the GPC. You "defend" the LCM's actions, yet claim that she is lying when it comes to the reasons behind her actions. You are entitled to an opinion, just as others are entitled to their opinion without you attempting to crucify them for it (as you have done to myself, Rachel, and practically anyone who has disagreed with you on these forums).
  • I would add that the majority of your feedback/criticism, or whatever you would like to call it, has come late in the process, and been almost purely destructive rather than constructive. If you believed yourself suitable for something such as the Grepolis Player Council, then perhaps you should have applied, rather than letting others drive and attempting to strangle them from the backseat of the car.
 

Ranga1

Phrourach
4) The REALITY is that YOU were advocating for a specific group of players and their interest. The staff quickly picked on it, and hence wisely dismantled the project.
The fact you think there was a conspiracy is evidence enough you are clueless, the fact you think inno devs actually agreed AND found it, is evidence you are just straight delusional.
 
@Kal Gordon

Ima give you some solid advice that I learned in GPC. You can't please everyone, some people will just have a grudge against you due to your past interactions with them. Its best not to waste your time debating Futbul. This guy is either a troll or an idiot. Either way nothing you say will get through to him and nothing he has to say is worth taking seriously. Whether its GPC, In game, or in real life. Its just a waste of time to bother with some people.
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
@FutbolTango:
  1. You keep bringing up that world's events as "evidence" as to why I was supposedly as a council member. That makes it extremely obvious that at least part of your criticism is based on a personal grudge rather than objective issues.
  2. I think anyone would be a little bit passive-aggressive if they volunteered their time to help on a project (which was partially to improve InnoGames' public image), and were then ignored. Any irritation only occurred after staff started to abandon us or show a complete lack of effort in solving easy issues. As for topics, we attempted to address a wide range of topics, from long-standing controversial issues such as spam (which a significant portion of the vocal community have been requesting fixes to for a long time), to short-term fixes to ensure that achievements were made in the somewhat limited contact we had with staff at times. If we had made no achievements in our term, I feel that you would have criticised us even more (if that is possible).
  3. This "Evil Empire" still only exists as your label for anyone who disagrees with you. Interestingly, all the tactics that you label as "evil", are those you've employed (or proudly been a part of teams that have employed) in the past. I'm perfectly happy to have a sensible debate with someone, but when they insist on making every argument personal and attacking facts, it becomes a little difficult.
  4. As I've stated before, I have tried to represent a variety of views based on my experience, and the experience of those who have discussed their feelings with me. A balanced viewpoint would be a lot easier to achieve with a fully-active council, but unfortunately we have not had that luxury this term. Between the council members from different markets, we have done our best.
  • Opposition is important. But when it is vindictive, unnecessarily aggressive opposition, it is not constructive.
  • The LCM has stated that the GPC was shut down due to a lack of time. This was showcased in screenshots (that we were given permission to share) of the LCM's responses, posted in my final update. You appear to have intentionally avoided that post in order to make some of your points. Time being the issue is evident in the fact that they were taking longer and longer to respond. If you don't believe in that, then look at the DevBlog. The DevBlog was not directly related to the GPC, yet it was shut down at a similar time to when the GPC started to receive less commitment from staff, by the same staff that were involved with the GPC. You "defend" the LCM's actions, yet claim that she is lying when it comes to the reasons behind her actions. You are entitled to an opinion, just as others are entitled to their opinion without you attempting to crucify them for it (as you have done to myself, Rachel, and practically anyone who has disagreed with you on these forums).
  • I would add that the majority of your feedback/criticism, or whatever you would like to call it, has come late in the process, and been almost purely destructive rather than constructive. If you believed yourself suitable for something such as the Grepolis Player Council, then perhaps you should have applied, rather than letting others drive and attempting to strangle them from the backseat of the car.
1. It seems that you are using the issue of the alleged grudge to obscure a valid criticism. I can tell you that I do not feel a grudge against you since we defeated your mega alliance. This is your imagination.

2. I appreciate that you are acknowledging that you engage in passive-aggressive commentary with the staff. It was clear that this was happening. I can see that you were frustrated, but I can imagine that this would only increase delays in response or ignoring requests.

3. I can see that you are not understanding my reference to the Empire or what I called it Evil. It is not about people, but about a way of thinking and acting.

4. I can see that you tried, but you became the agent of the Empire at the council. You certainly never voiced my views or the views that play like me. You still have never stated anything positive or have acknowledged the contributions and point of view of players who have played in my alliances.

5. As a council member, your actions can be criticized and should be criticized. You took it personally and continue to do so. Perhaps one day you will realize that in a similar position, you should pay more attention to those who disagree with you than those who agree.

6. Criticism and opposition are that in itself. It is opt to you make it positive or negative. As a player, I have the right to comment in the actions of the player council even if the council does not like it.

Overall, it was good from the InnoGames staff to try this initiative. It shows good will from them. Perhaps they did not realize how politicized and biased the council was going to become.

I dare you be objective. Mention a few positive contributions that yours truly, Futboltango, has made to the worlds and forums. If you can not, and you can not see the positive impact that those of us who play in an unorthodox manner give to the game, then you were really not material for Council Member.

Some of us exist to explore different ways of playing and to question the conventional wisdom of the "Empire" or what some of you consider the "natural" order in the Grepolis community.
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
@FutbolTango:
  1. Every time I join in on an issue in a forum that you frequent, you immediately start to disagree with me, citing that world as a reason why I must be in the wrong (even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic). I'm never sure if this is an attempt to drag the argument off-topic to avoid admitting that you could ever possibly be wrong, or simply that you believe it does matter for some obscure reason. There were lots of conflicting opinions about what went on in that world. If you want to continue to argue about it, go to where it is relevant.
  2. I don't believe I've ever denied my feelings with regards to how we were treated. I specifically stated in my public candidacy application that "I'm not shy about airing concerns and suggestions". People still voted for me. The frustration (and therefore any irritation that came across in posts) only appeared after we had begun to suffer worse and worse breaches in communication from the staff side, in addition to some objectively-poor responses and lack of intention to solve even easy and non-controversial issues. I don't think anyone appreciates having their time wasted for months because some staff didn't have the courage/effort to admit that they couldn't (or weren't intending to) spend as much time on communication with the GPC. It took them 3 months (of complete radio silence) to tell us that they were shutting the GPC, during which time they were apparently observing (without responding) our repeated requests for any form of communication about end-of-term details.
  3. Your definition of the Evil Empire is confusing at the best of times. Anyone who disagrees with you gets labelled as an agent of the Evil Empire. You've also used this term to apply to basically any large alliance that is successful in a world, especially those that you feel attempt to silence / shout down anyone who disagrees with them (which almost perfectly describes the original Thermopylae, which you continue to glorify). You also state that the Evil Empire is attempting to preserve the status quo because it suits their playstyle (something which you have mimicked on the topic of spam, stating that it should be allowed to continue as it's something you use, despite the fact that a majority of the vocal community dislike it).
  4. I never became an "agent" of this supposed Evil Empire that you implicate everyone in. During my time in the council, I played with several different teams with different attitudes towards the game (Obsidian Vanguard, True Fear, This Is A Mistake, Victrix). I attempted to get feedback and engage with people wherever I could. This included keeping an eye on world chats for worlds I didn't play (so I could get exposed to alternate viewpoints from other world settings), helping push for and run the EN/US GPC-Community chat, getting engaged here on the forums as much as possible, and encouraging anyone at all to contact me in a number of ways if they wanted to have a 1-to-1 conversation. The vast majority of your viewpoints in this part of the forum can be divided into two sections: supporting the continuation of spam (something that a majority of the vocal community was in favour of seeking ways to remove), and attacking me as a council member. I did not discriminate based on teams: it's not my fault if players from a particular alliance don't choose to get in contact or participate on the forums. (If you are referring purely to Black Sails, then the only issue that they were heavily involved in was the spam discussion via yourself and Ozz, and a majority of players were anti-spam. If I had ignored the majority, I would not be doing my job as a representative of the community.) I was a supporter of the Domination concept, an endgame designed with the aim of eliminating the crown-sharing that you have also argued against, and therefore in a way I did represent at least a fraction of your views.
  5. Yes, criticism is something I expected when volunteering for council. Your criticism is seen as personal (by more than just myself), because you have intentionally made it so, by continually focusing on non-GPC-related events (prior to my term in council) as reasons why I was a bad representative. I will happily take useful criticism on-board, but when it is personal and destructive criticism, that's not helpful to anyone.
  6. I believe I was discussing "constructive" and "destructive" criticism, rather than "positive" or "negative" criticism. Constructive criticism can be positive or negative, but it involves suggestions on how to improve the issue, or work around it. Destructive criticism (which is what I was against the use of) is criticism that is given purely to tear-down, with no way to improve - this is what a lot of your responses have consisted of. You have the right to comment however you like (within the rules), but spouting endless destructive (and personally-motivated) criticism will only make you look bad, and ruin the basis of any useful content in your posts.
I like that InnoGames tried this initiative. I would be supportive if they tried it (or a project with similar goals) again. There were suggestions we'd make (such as giving us a better idea of how much communication to expect, as the variable and worsening response times were one of the major causes of friction) if it were to be run again, in order to make it more successful for everyone involved. I don't believe that the council was particularly political. There were issues between council members and between markets at times, based on priorities (this could be seen in term 1 and term 2), but these were worked around. As stated by the LCM, the GPC project was shut down due to a lack of time on the staff side.

You again accuse me of bias, or not representing everyone. I would like to remind you that it would be practically impossible for one person to represent the entire community's views perfectly (and there would still be discontent due to groups with a minority opinion claiming that their opinion is worth more than the majority). That's what we had on the EN council on a lot of occasions. Out of the 5 elected members, 1 never checked in to accept their role, 2 disappeared after not getting onto Inner Council, and 1 disappeared permanently a short while after getting onto the Inner Council. I was the Inner Council substitute (not even the main) - I was absent for a short while due to some personal reasons, but after I came back I spent a significant while attempting to handle a 5-person job by myself. We did get late replacements in the form of Fluvisol and TaskCo, but they didn't have the time to join Inner Council. In your posts, you repeatedly criticise me for my actions, and avoid the disappearance of a number of other representatives. I would argue that, even if you don't agree with all of my actions, some action is better than no action.

Personally, I find it hard to reference any sizeable number of positive contributions from yourself, except for the possible argument of making some threads more active. You made some reasonable points on the topic of spam, however accompanied it with personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with you. The majority of the rest of your contributions on this forum were designed to irritate and antagonise other members of the community, i.e. tearing down rather than building up. Maybe I wasn't great material for a council member. But people knowingly voted for me, and I did my best in the circumstances given. I put in the time and the effort that I felt that the role deserved, and frankly that's all I feel anyone can ever do.
 

1saaa

Phrourach
@FutbolTango. Just saying. to my knowlege Kal Gordon has not been in many of the 'evil empire' alliances of the past. could you please list teams he has been a part of that you would consider the 'evil empire.'
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
@FutbolTango:
  1. Every time I join in on an issue in a forum that you frequent, you immediately start to disagree with me, citing that world as a reason why I must be in the wrong (even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic). I'm never sure if this is an attempt to drag the argument off-topic to avoid admitting that you could ever possibly be wrong, or simply that you believe it does matter for some obscure reason. There were lots of conflicting opinions about what went on in that world. If you want to continue to argue about it, go to where it is relevant.
  2. I don't believe I've ever denied my feelings with regards to how we were treated. I specifically stated in my public candidacy application that "I'm not shy about airing concerns and suggestions". People still voted for me. The frustration (and therefore any irritation that came across in posts) only appeared after we had begun to suffer worse and worse breaches in communication from the staff side, in addition to some objectively-poor responses and lack of intention to solve even easy and non-controversial issues. I don't think anyone appreciates having their time wasted for months because some staff didn't have the courage/effort to admit that they couldn't (or weren't intending to) spend as much time on communication with the GPC. It took them 3 months (of complete radio silence) to tell us that they were shutting the GPC, during which time they were apparently observing (without responding) our repeated requests for any form of communication about end-of-term details.
  3. Your definition of the Evil Empire is confusing at the best of times. Anyone who disagrees with you gets labelled as an agent of the Evil Empire. You've also used this term to apply to basically any large alliance that is successful in a world, especially those that you feel attempt to silence / shout down anyone who disagrees with them (which almost perfectly describes the original Thermopylae, which you continue to glorify). You also state that the Evil Empire is attempting to preserve the status quo because it suits their playstyle (something which you have mimicked on the topic of spam, stating that it should be allowed to continue as it's something you use, despite the fact that a majority of the vocal community dislike it).
  4. I never became an "agent" of this supposed Evil Empire that you implicate everyone in. During my time in the council, I played with several different teams with different attitudes towards the game (Obsidian Vanguard, True Fear, This Is A Mistake, Victrix). I attempted to get feedback and engage with people wherever I could. This included keeping an eye on world chats for worlds I didn't play (so I could get exposed to alternate viewpoints from other world settings), helping push for and run the EN/US GPC-Community chat, getting engaged here on the forums as much as possible, and encouraging anyone at all to contact me in a number of ways if they wanted to have a 1-to-1 conversation. The vast majority of your viewpoints in this part of the forum can be divided into two sections: supporting the continuation of spam (something that a majority of the vocal community was in favour of seeking ways to remove), and attacking me as a council member. I did not discriminate based on teams: it's not my fault if players from a particular alliance don't choose to get in contact or participate on the forums. (If you are referring purely to Black Sails, then the only issue that they were heavily involved in was the spam discussion via yourself and Ozz, and a majority of players were anti-spam. If I had ignored the majority, I would not be doing my job as a representative of the community.) I was a supporter of the Domination concept, an endgame designed with the aim of eliminating the crown-sharing that you have also argued against, and therefore in a way I did represent at least a fraction of your views.
  5. Yes, criticism is something I expected when volunteering for council. Your criticism is seen as personal (by more than just myself), because you have intentionally made it so, by continually focusing on non-GPC-related events (prior to my term in council) as reasons why I was a bad representative. I will happily take useful criticism on-board, but when it is personal and destructive criticism, that's not helpful to anyone.
  6. I believe I was discussing "constructive" and "destructive" criticism, rather than "positive" or "negative" criticism. Constructive criticism can be positive or negative, but it involves suggestions on how to improve the issue, or work around it. Destructive criticism (which is what I was against the use of) is criticism that is given purely to tear-down, with no way to improve - this is what a lot of your responses have consisted of. You have the right to comment however you like (within the rules), but spouting endless destructive (and personally-motivated) criticism will only make you look bad, and ruin the basis of any useful content in your posts.
I like that InnoGames tried this initiative. I would be supportive if they tried it (or a project with similar goals) again. There were suggestions we'd make (such as giving us a better idea of how much communication to expect, as the variable and worsening response times were one of the major causes of friction) if it were to be run again, in order to make it more successful for everyone involved. I don't believe that the council was particularly political. There were issues between council members and between markets at times, based on priorities (this could be seen in term 1 and term 2), but these were worked around. As stated by the LCM, the GPC project was shut down due to a lack of time on the staff side.

You again accuse me of bias, or not representing everyone. I would like to remind you that it would be practically impossible for one person to represent the entire community's views perfectly (and there would still be discontent due to groups with a minority opinion claiming that their opinion is worth more than the majority). That's what we had on the EN council on a lot of occasions. Out of the 5 elected members, 1 never checked in to accept their role, 2 disappeared after not getting onto Inner Council, and 1 disappeared permanently a short while after getting onto the Inner Council. I was the Inner Council substitute (not even the main) - I was absent for a short while due to some personal reasons, but after I came back I spent a significant while attempting to handle a 5-person job by myself. We did get late replacements in the form of Fluvisol and TaskCo, but they didn't have the time to join Inner Council. In your posts, you repeatedly criticise me for my actions, and avoid the disappearance of a number of other representatives. I would argue that, even if you don't agree with all of my actions, some action is better than no action.

Personally, I find it hard to reference any sizeable number of positive contributions from yourself, except for the possible argument of making some threads more active. You made some reasonable points on the topic of spam, however accompanied it with personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with you. The majority of the rest of your contributions on this forum were designed to irritate and antagonise other members of the community, i.e. tearing down rather than building up. Maybe I wasn't great material for a council member. But people knowingly voted for me, and I did my best in the circumstances given. I put in the time and the effort that I felt that the role deserved, and frankly that's all I feel anyone can ever do.
Dear Kal,

1.- I sincerely feel that you are projecting. I do not have a grudge against you if anything, it could be argued that you are the one that has one. You comment and reply to my opinions even in threads of worlds where you are not playing or have little involvement. I do have the right and duty to comment in your actions as representative member of the council.

5 and 6. I feel that the criticism is valid. I will reiterate.
I feel that you engaged in passive-aggressive behaviour with the InnoGames staff. For example, you openly discussed their perceived shortcoming or lack of following up issues without giving them opportunity to explain themselves.

I also feel that you over-discussed minor issues when they were looking at major trends.

I also feel that you became very partisan.

I hope that you reflect and correct these issues if the opportunity arises again.

I can see that you spent time on the Council and I want to thank you for this. You wrote detailed updates and this was nice although as I explained, I think that the tone and approach could have been more collaborative.

In a different thread, I will expand on the concept of the "Empire", why is "Evil", and how some of us are trying to resist and subvert their tyranny and powerful presence.

We can not fault the InnoGames staff. They tried to give us a venue to connect with them and we as players blew it up. We are the ones who have to take responsability and blame for this enterprise to fall apart.

I also take the blame for not putting my name forward. I thought that the council was going to last longer and eventually wanted to be involved. I kind of had a wait and see approach but it is too late now.
 
Last edited:

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
What can I do to offer you an olive branch?
But you have to understand that I will take and defend opposite positions to the ones that most of you have just for the exercise of moving forward.
 

molinillo

Chiliarch
...I think that the tone and approach could have been more collaborative.
Valid point, but it’s not so simple.

Those who have played on more markets sure noticed differences between them which were enlarged in GPC and provided many reasons for arguments. Some markets had different forum rules (chat invite links forbidden), game rules are the same, but some interpreted them differently and banned for circumventing the 20% BP change, some got to design heroes... or lets take a current example, another market got their event community goals fixed a week ago, we are still waiting.
Without the context GPC provided we could not detect many of these problems nor reach changes, but likely it was not the original goal with GPC. In most cases the CoMa of the actual market helped the most, it took us some time to figure out that dumping all this on Inner Council forum won’t help, some issues are better handled step by step, locally.

So Innogames looked for player representatives of markets and opened a can of worms instead of a less divisive approach like delegates of the entire community that could have lead to much better collaboration - more focus on the game. It was inevitable that sensitive topics like market inequality become a center of interest. The expectation to represent whole markets similar to a CoMa was also too high instead of just giving our own best experience and interpretation of community feedback.

The idea of recruiting random players to give them insight to game development and get direct feedback in return is strong enough without the politics. The Player Council concept is popular in other games but could have been better adjusted to Grepolis market structure, not all markets were represented, but members tend to take the representation too far, couldn’t distinguish what was their personal opinion and what was their market's majority view or for instance argued their view weighed more because their market is more active etc.
The different backgrounds, playstyle are also more relevant than market affiliation. Quite simplified, without names, the last Inner Council's most active members were a player who works hard on keeping the player count above 300 on a 3 year old server, a pure app version player, a player who refuses to use alarm, a player who doesn’t buy any gold and a player who wanted more limits on exploits. This variety ensured that we could easily get an expert player answer to almost any problems within our small group and IC could not be lead by personal agendas even if anyone tried. Meanwhile more of us got critics for running own agenda or being an 'accomplice of Inno' just for trying to remain constructive in the most difficult times - the community pressure is often hard to deal with, way harder than I expected.

As for the right to dissent, you can see on other forums that a GPC statement was posted despite not all GPC members agreed with the narrative and tone, for example on US it was posted against my will (it’s not posted on EN). A different approach could have hardly changed the known fact that GPC practically stopped 3 months by then and obviously had no future, but this incident illustrates well our challenges of collaboration.

We can not fault the InnoGames staff. They tried to give us a venue to connect with them and we as players blew it up. We are the ones who have to take responsability and blame for this enterprise to fall apart.
We, GPC members were dedicated and did what we signed up for, meanwhile Innogames staff forgot that they dealt with regular players who are compensated by attention not by money, also not trained community reps like a CoMa whose job is to keep their cool under pressure and frustration, underestimated their own workload and the shift of focus to community topics during the months they didn't give enough attention to the program. I don't think blaming any side is the way forward, but recognizing what went wrong and what was the real goal is important.
Player Council is not just a marketing catch phrase, our input for sure was not unworthy, we all knew when it started that there cannot be immediate results. Maybe from your side of view we blew this opportunity up, but I don't wish for anyone to put their heart into an abandoned project and feel releived that eventually Innogames made a responsible decision to discontinue GPC this time, even if it was late and our time got wasted for no good reason. More of us in IC shared constructive suggestions and offered help if they launch such a program ever again.

I also take the blame for not putting my name forward. I thought that the council was going to last longer and eventually wanted to be involved. I kind of had a wait and see approach but it is too late now.
They had a similar short lived program named Grepolis Focus Group before this, so it isn't necessarily the last attempt to connect directly with players. I hope you will get a chance one day and everyone who has ambition to make the game better if not in GPC then in another project!
 

FutbolTango

Banned
Banned
Valid point, but it’s not so simple.

Those who have played on more markets sure noticed differences between them which were enlarged in GPC and provided many reasons for arguments. Some markets had different forum rules (chat invite links forbidden), game rules are the same, but some interpreted them differently and banned for circumventing the 20% BP change, some got to design heroes... or lets take a current example, another market got their event community goals fixed a week ago, we are still waiting.
Without the context GPC provided we could not detect many of these problems nor reach changes, but likely it was not the original goal with GPC. In most cases the CoMa of the actual market helped the most, it took us some time to figure out that dumping all this on Inner Council forum won’t help, some issues are better handled step by step, locally.

So Innogames looked for player representatives of markets and opened a can of worms instead of a less divisive approach like delegates of the entire community that could have lead to much better collaboration - more focus on the game. It was inevitable that sensitive topics like market inequality become a center of interest. The expectation to represent whole markets similar to a CoMa was also too high instead of just giving our own best experience and interpretation of community feedback.

The idea of recruiting random players to give them insight to game development and get direct feedback in return is strong enough without the politics. The Player Council concept is popular in other games but could have been better adjusted to Grepolis market structure, not all markets were represented, but members tend to take the representation too far, couldn’t distinguish what was their personal opinion and what was their market's majority view or for instance argued their view weighed more because their market is more active etc.
The different backgrounds, playstyle are also more relevant than market affiliation. Quite simplified, without names, the last Inner Council's most active members were a player who works hard on keeping the player count above 300 on a 3 year old server, a pure app version player, a player who refuses to use alarm, a player who doesn’t buy any gold and a player who wanted more limits on exploits. This variety ensured that we could easily get an expert player answer to almost any problems within our small group and IC could not be lead by personal agendas even if anyone tried. Meanwhile more of us got critics for running own agenda or being an 'accomplice of Inno' just for trying to remain constructive in the most difficult times - the community pressure is often hard to deal with, way harder than I expected.

As for the right to dissent, you can see on other forums that a GPC statement was posted despite not all GPC members agreed with the narrative and tone, for example on US it was posted against my will (it’s not posted on EN). A different approach could have hardly changed the known fact that GPC practically stopped 3 months by then and obviously had no future, but this incident illustrates well our challenges of collaboration.



We, GPC members were dedicated and did what we signed up for, meanwhile Innogames staff forgot that they dealt with regular players who are compensated by attention not by money, also not trained community reps like a CoMa whose job is to keep their cool under pressure and frustration, underestimated their own workload and the shift of focus to community topics during the months they didn't give enough attention to the program. I don't think blaming any side is the way forward, but recognizing what went wrong and what was the real goal is important.
Player Council is not just a marketing catch phrase, our input for sure was not unworthy, we all knew when it started that there cannot be immediate results. Maybe from your side of view we blew this opportunity up, but I don't wish for anyone to put their heart into an abandoned project and feel releived that eventually Innogames made a responsible decision to discontinue GPC this time, even if it was late and our time got wasted for no good reason. More of us in IC shared constructive suggestions and offered help if they launch such a program ever again.



They had a similar short lived program named Grepolis Focus Group before this, so it isn't necessarily the last attempt to connect directly with players. I hope you will get a chance one day and everyone who has ambition to make the game better if not in GPC then in another project!
Thank you for the response.