How could a new BBRC work?

[sann0638]

No disrespect, sann, but I don't think I've ever been asked anything in my capacity as a NAF member.

Interesting. What would you like to have been asked?

[dode74]

Shteve0 - What evidence would be sufficient? I think the evidence for me is that the rules are currently without ownership. I'm not even suggesting that any new BBRC should make changes to the rules, but at least if there is one then rules issues can be properly addressed and changes can be assessed for testing. As it stands there is merely stagnation, and that's not good for anyone. A BBRC simply existing also acts as a safety-net for us being "end-timed".

sann - polls on the forum could perhaps be made somewhat more widely known about, should it seem necessary. The one I linked before showed a clear preference for a BBRC but was dismissed because the sample size was considered too small. It seems a fairly obvious step from there to actively poll people to improve that deficiency.

[sann0638]

Sorry dode, don't accept that. We do our best to get people to engage, but there is huge amounts of resistance. Any suggestions of doing something different always welcome, however.

[dode74]

You asked me what I would have liked to have been asked and I told you, but you don't accept that a poll discusses a matter which has potentially far-reaching effects and which showed a fairly decisive lean in one direction, and which was subsequently dismissed on the basis of the sample size, doesn't deserve to be more widely promulgated to resolve that sample size issue? Then I fail to see how anything could be sufficiently momentous to require actively asking people their opinions!

Seriously, how hard could it be to set up an online poll and send it out by email? What possible harm is there in so doing?

[Shteve0]

I think you're being a little harsh on Mike there mate. He's just implied there's a lot more community engagement stuff in the pipeline - give him a chance.

Whether or not you and I feel a new BBRC would be a good thing, establishing the authority for the NAF to actively create it (and more to the point, something that had buy-in and total co-operation from Cyanide and FUMBBL) would constitute a fundamental change in direction for the organisation and potentially open up all manner of cans of worms - something I'm hoping you agree should be based on a clear need, not just because we suddenly feel like it. As to how much evidence is needed for that to happen... well, some would be a start.

[sann0638]

polls on the forum could perhaps be made somewhat more widely known about, should it seem necessary.

Sorry, should have specified (was busy fumbling). This was the bit I had an issue with. Don't know how to do this. Trying every which way. Meanwhile, there is a big survey coming, if you like answering questions

[dode74]

If I was harsh it's because I felt the point was dismissed out of hand. I know Mike does a lot and have worked with him on stuff before (the Cyanide version of the RTWC).

I think there is a clear need: the charter is based on a situation which no longer applies, so needs review at the very least. The game itself is stagnant as described, so the NAF needs to decide if it wants to be in a position to change that. It can put itself in that position, and polling of the membership so far suggests it should. There would be entire canneries of worms opened, no doubt, but that's the nature of change. Eggs and omelettes again.

If I understand you correctly you are saying there needs to be a clear need for rule change in order to change the rules. I agree with you entirely there. I don't, though, think that same need is required for the structural changes described: you don't need there to be a requirement for a rule change in order for there to be a requirement for a BBRC or a NAF charter which allows it.

[dode74]

polls on the forum could perhaps be made somewhat more widely known about, should it seem necessary.

Sorry, should have specified (was busy fumbling). This was the bit I had an issue with. Don't know how to do this. Trying every which way. Meanwhile, there is a big survey coming, if you like answering questions

Seems you do know how to do it if a survey is coming. You don't need 100% participation for validity.

[Shteve0]

If I was harsh it's because I felt the point was dismissed out of hand. I know Mike does a lot and have worked with him on stuff before (the Cyanide version of the RTWC).

I think there is a clear need: the charter is based on a situation which no longer applies, so needs review at the very least. The game itself is stagnant as described, so the NAF needs to decide if it wants to be in a position to change that. It can put itself in that position, and polling of the membership so far suggests it should. There would be entire canneries of worms opened, no doubt, but that's the nature of change. Eggs and omelettes again.

If I understand you correctly you are saying there needs to be a clear need for rule change in order to change the rules. I agree with you entirely there. I don't, though, think that same need is required for the structural changes described: you don't need there to be a requirement for a rule change in order for there to be a requirement for a BBRC or a NAF charter which allows it.

Yes and no. I think there would need to be a problem to solve in order for a BBRC to be beneficial. That might be required changes to rules, it might be that the community splits due to the emergence of clashing rulesets emerging through BB2 or some much trumpeted and misleadingly named set of houserules*, or some other cataclysmic event. Even then there I think there would need to be a clear void in leadership for the NAF to take it into its own hands and change shape to resolve the issue.

Frankly, it's moot anyway; in effect Cyanide have already created a BBRC (which strictly speaking is between them and GW), it's just that they've chosen to do so behind closed doors and we don't know who's on it. So really the suggestion here is that the NAF sets up a rival BBRC to take on Cyanide. More immediately, it gives us the problem that since the nature of any changes is being kept relatively quiet, we look likely to, for whatever amount of time, be operating two different rulesets between the PC game and TT/FUMBBL.

On a less serious note, just saying "eggs and omelettes" is all well and good, but you don't just go around breaking eggs willy nilly on the off chance someone nearby might use them. And it's not particularly constructive to go up to someone who's halfway through making you an omelette, break loads of eggs and sternly tell them they should have used the ones you broke instead.

* just teasing Martin, please don't take that too seriously!

[Vanguard]

I was talking about a version of the rules with fewer holes in, not changing them.

Agreed and would be my starting position too. The amount of 're-phrasing' required to keep the NAF on the right side of the law is unknown however. It is something that the NAF could investigate tho', consult an IP lawyer for opinion. (We may even have one on here somewhere)

To play devils advocate, if people were drifting away from tournaments because the rules were broken or unstable, and the NAF stood by and did nothing, then that would be more of a failing.

Equally, a growing and developing player base is something that the NAF should be striving for. If the NAF organised a re-launched rule book and partnered with some of the third party companies to produce teams and accessories you could find a whole new generation of players.

Just look at the turnout for NAF elections. There are 1000 people willing to pay to fly to Italy to play this game, but fewer than 100 people bothered to vote in the recent League Director elections.

Yeah, there's a huge helping of voter apathy there, but that doesn't mean they oppose change either. There's 1000's of people willing to play in tournaments every year, but only a fraction of them put the effort in to run tournaments. That's fine, everyone has their own level of commitment to BB. While many may be indifferent to elections, they could be equally indifferent to rules changes. If we have a huge number of players who want nothing more than to turn up, roll dice and have a beer then does it matter what ruleset we use?

What is the process for taking an issue to the NAF board? I assume there must be some mechanism for members to raise issues for discussion at the AGM and to be taken to the wider membership.

[dode74]

Shteve0 - Your first paragraph claims a need for a problem, and your second goes on to describe it!

Just for a second imagine that BB2 comes out with a few different rules, but there is no change to LRB6 and no published ruleset or even addendum. That leaves us with the problem you describe for more than just the short term. What then? Cyanide won't change anything on the basis of TT or FUMBBL need, nor will they produce a ruleset, which leaves TT and FUMBBL not playing what you've basically described as the new official rules! Someone, somewhere, will need to do something, be that acknowledging the split or adjusting the ruleset.

I've not suggested randomly smashing eggs. There's a clear omelette in sight here and I have already described it: there's ham, cheese and mushrooms in it, and there seems to be positive interest in it from the NAF membership.

I also don't think I was particularly harsh with Mike, given the context. With no idea of a survey inbound I couldn't possibly know about his omelette, and he did actively ask for other recipes in this thread (he asked for suggestions of ways to do something different in the post I took exception to). If Mike thinks I was overly harsh then he can tell me so.

[Darkson]

I don't like omelettes, with or without ham, mushrooms or cheese.
Can the NAF get me a pizza instead?

[Shteve0]

I described a problem that setting up a second BBRC wouldn't solve. Which is pretty much my point. It's no good throwing around solutions when we don't know what problem we're trying to solve in the first place.

Darkson, you should have said you didn't like omelettes before we started breaking all these eggs!

[dode74]

I described exactly how a BBRC could solve that problem.

[sann0638]

With a Spanish omelette?