41 replies to this topic

[Sephiroth]

Greetings, fellow PureZCians! Today's announcement is one of the first set of changes that will affect Quest Project Forums on this site. As some of you may know, in the last few months there has been quite a bit of spot-swapping with QPFs, so the Site Staff are making some changes that will take place. Some of these changes will take effect immediately, but some will be slowly introduced and take place over a longer period of time. I shall describe what is going to take place. However, do note that some of these decisions are still in the works and are still under discussion amongst the Site Staff.

Changes Effective Immediately

QPF Ownership

QPF hosts will no longer be allowed to decide on their replacement for their QPF. Such decisions will be made by the Site Staff. Reason: The final decision will be made by the staff so as to assure that a fair and impartial decision is made, thus minimizing the chance of cronyism being a factor. However, please note that the Site Staff will listen to recommendations from the community.

Other information

The site staff are still actively discussing what some of the new ground rules will be regarding the QPFs, and as such, when these decisions are made, a new announcement will be made containing the details. We currently do not have a timetable on when these decisions will be made, so please don't ask about that either. We will let the community know when we know.

[Russ]

You know, I actually don't think this is very fair. If a QPF member wants to leave and have somebody specific take his place, why can't he?

[LostInHyru1e]

I have mixed emotions on this one. I'd like to see the QPF more organized- and I respect the staff's decisions. However, I really hope that you take the recommendations of the other QPF members if they're reasonable, because they'll have to be sharing a QPF.

Thanks for the updates, Sep. (And the rest of the staff)

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Actually, I like this idea... it would keep things much more fair...
So people won't choose someone that they don't like, just because they don't like em... Great job (again) SS!

[CastChaos]

Does this decision has anything to do with the "leave-rejoin-leave-rejoin-leave-rejoin..." problem? Will people stay and get active in their QPFs OR if they leave they won't immediately beg back? Heh, nothing changes. Technically staff made members to be QPF owners even before. But at least people will be happy thinking something became better. Making people happy is good, congrats.

[Aslion]

I got an invite for a spot roughly 2 hours before you posted this, will that be normal since technically the rule wasn't public yet?

Well, I do like the rule. Should give people some chances of getting QPF's besides the fact that the owners are friends.

[Twilight Knight]

What?!
I just thought I finally could get a brilliant QPF spot, I waited for this chance for months, no years.
Just in the period I need this..., I hope I can still get the spot because I really want it so bad.
This new rule has a good side, but bad side:
Good- What gray0x said, fair chances.
Bad- If the staff doesn't listen to the story of the member that is signing in for the spot, but only to the community recommendations, there still is this choose-my-friend thing. Plus there is more work for the staff.

Can there be more specified on how to sign in, because I really want this spot badly and I'm not one of these "once active and the rest of the time inactive" guys.

[ZebraStallion]

I would like this idea if we could send an explanation of our quest to the staff instead of them just choosing somebody who they think is the best. For people like me who have had very bad quest designing skills in the past and have improved, then the staff might not be aware of that.

[Twilight Knight]

Yes, I think the system leaving QPF members should be used by the staff to, that's the best.

[Russ]

I got an invite for a spot roughly 2 hours before you posted this, will that be normal since technically the rule wasn't public yet?

I too got an invite. I got it half an hour before this rule was posted. Does that mean I still get the QPF?

[Eurysilas]

You know, I actually don't think this is very fair. If a QPF member wants to leave and have somebody specific take his place, why can't he?

Because, as Sephiroth stated, this situation lends itself to cronyism. I for one think it's an excellent idea. To be frank, I think the staff are more qualified to pick a good replacement than any one member, by sheer virtue of number, not because they are smarter, or anything like that. Many eyes on a problem tend to be fairer and better than just one.

[Linkus]

Hmm. Indeed the QPFs are in a state of chaos right now (Actually, I think the whole site is in a state of chaos right now).

I propose reorganizing the QPFs into a smaller number; 9 is too many to have. I recommend condensing to 5 or 6, and really up the value on these things. As for selecting a QPF host, those who show no tendency to leave their spot/leave the site along with high ZC experience in several fields are of course the most qualified. Otherwise, it would just be a "better luck next time" for those who are denied of their proposal.

[Evile]

This decision doesn't really affect me since I am leaving but I think it sounds pretty good. Also, I don't need my QPF spot so you guys can fill it up.

[Russ]

This decision doesn't really affect me since I am leaving but I think it sounds pretty good. Also, I don't need my QPF spot so you guys can fill it up.

I still cannot believe I got so close to getting your spot! I am so upset about this rule. So, how do I apply for an empty spot in a QPF now? Also, maybe to let more people in, we should make it four people to a forum.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I still cannot believe I got so close to getting your spot! I am so upset about this rule. So, how do I apply for an empty spot in a QPF now? Also, maybe to let more people in, we should make it four people to a forum.

Uhm... That would be dumb... Really... as Linkus said, we need to up the value of QPF's... and that is not the way to do it.