Rule Suggestion Require SL to do a community vote before making some changes

[Nirvan]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Force Server leadership to communicate with the community they're ... leading.
Over the past few months and even years it's been apparent that most time SL have no clue what the community wants or needs, There's been so many random changes that the majority of the server didn't want implemented. If you take a quick look at the change logs channel, There's an overwhelming dislike to like ratio on most changes SL implement.
A simple voting system before most changes would make the community feel listened to. There's been a lot of cases where SL makes a change that everyone hates and they have to eventually go back and fix it after months, For example : USSR Regiment names (They changed it to the new ones before eventually going back to the OG names) - Removing sniper pings - Snipers requiring CS -The leveling system and The 20 gazillion times they changed recoil/spread and way more.
Also certain SL members (Steven) are already trying to do this via the voting channels for each regiment-types and it's going well so making a voting system for all changes will do well.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

Don't think so

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

A more engaged community
Less dev time wasted
Gameplay that a majority will enjoy more

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

SL won't be able to make decisions on the spot
The Community can be special some times
Making a vote takes time I guess

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

There's been a lot of bad decisions made (and reversed) in MRPs life span, so I believe reducing these can concentrate dev work on things MRP actually needs.

PS:I wrote this on my phone so any spelling mistakes, it was all auro corrects fault.

 

[Niox]

SCP-RP community really saw a MRP suggestion and went "this is OUR suggestion"

 

[Dayumian max]

+support for big changes like the thirdperson.
-support for small changes

I just realised this is mrp

 

[Nirvan]

The amount of SCP players that can't read the big ass MRP Suggestions at the top is crazy...

 

[Douglas]

SCP-RP community really saw a MRP suggestion and went "this is OUR suggestion"

it is.

 

[Dragos587]

+support i hate steven connor

 

[J. 'Cubic' H.]

+support shit it's MRP

 

[Solaz]

Yall mfs need to learn the tags on forums.

+soup to the iranian mans suggestion

 

[Emilia Foddg]

this is probably a good cause for a new location in MRP - various bits and pieces of an medical facility post-explosion.
with the lore that it was apparently once called "medbay" and all accounts suggest that there "should be a turret in here"

...there never was.
+Support

 

[Bobby1]

I think any changes done tk Darkrp should go through the playerbase first

 

[Jimothy Leaderson]

Neutral (leaning -support when it comes to the matter of requiring SL and the exact functions of this system)

I think when it comes to more significant updates and changes it is a good idea for better consultation with RP leaders prior to a change, and slower rollout of the updates while consistently taking in feedback and adjusting accordingly. However for a bigger scale community vote for every single change and forcing SL to follow the community's instructions I don't think will go well.

Obviously there's the issue of anyone will be able to interact with this including those who don't want to play the server and just vote for silly shit (yes this would 100% happen), even people with regiment roles a lot of the time don't get them removed so that can't prevent it. Such as the 2 +Supports on this suggestion from people who no longer play MRP and have no stake in the server, oh and also you writing this suggestion when you don't consistently play the server and again have no role or stake. While you can obviously do so, this suggestion will have a greater impact on current and active MRP players than you, as would the votes which can be turned.

Also will have the added issue of certain regiments that have more activity and members at a time trying to push for things more beneficial than them (I believe there was a case of ISAF doing this some time ago around the drone update, opposing any suggestions to nerf drones and simultaneously pushing for heli nerfs and AT4 buffs) and issues such as that.

 

[Wib Wubbles]

+Support
Steven Connor is biased
-Wib

 

[Jack G]

+Support
I’ll never understand why we just stopped doing polls… 90% of content suggestions we had before that were accepted and were actually important were put through Polls. The only one that realistically has is one about Infantry, whereas it should also be things such as the rule changes for example or big changes that affect entire regiments.

I did it when I was SA and it was great.

 

[Yeke]

Hello.

This is not something I will ever enforce on my teams, if there is a need to do a poll, then I would expect they do them, however sometimes we have to deliver bad news and change things that are "liked" for the state of the server.

As stated by Ben, creating polls are great, however they do not encompass a whole issue and can lead to factions falsely inflating numbers which means SSL have to sit through the poll results to find an appropriate resolution. (We aren't blind to this happening where people get their friends to vote a certain way)

We value communication, however we have also seen at the same time SSL have attempted to communicate and got no responses back, as a result, leading to them making a differing decision because 90% of the "voting" base decided to provide no feedback for them to understand.

a lot of communities do this and it works and as an added positive if a change is bad, they community can't blame management.

Although true in most communities cases and I do believe in communication, this is not how it happens at all sadly, instead the finger gets pointed at the devs, SL and management every time.

A final point from me is that the MRP SSL team are trying their best to keep things fresh and keep two sides that generally don't agree on anything and have different views on the service entertained for the longevity of the server, however this is not always easy and there will be times things are trialled and walked back, and that is okay, its part and parcel of trying things out.

As a result the suggestion will be locked and moved.

Kind Regards
Yeke