It's more the process itself that I would like to see changed.

I also don't think every envoy discussion should be public, it is only the final reports and vetos that would be nice to see.

I think that if the Wiki was open, Envoys would get heckled too much IG. No suggestion will please everyone, and eventually people will just be too tired of arguing their suggestions with -everyone-, and the envoy process will become ... less effective.

Keep it behind closed doors, there are times where transparency isn't the best route, this is one.

As it is you have to debate your point 3-4 times to get it agreed upon by envoys (It took me what seemed like 2 weeks of solid debating with envoys about getting size damage reduction and damage boosting things normalised before it was agreed that it should be looked into) I'm sure most envoys don't want to have to justify themselves many times over. It'd be like if Estarra agreed to take private message about all the changes made to lusti. You'd be busier than a 1 legged man in an ass kicking competition.

One of the reasons people want to see what's going on, is so they can say OMG murphy liek stopp tryin 2 nerf my skillzors, i r need B leet.

Unfortunately, when you remove the stupid intentional internet-speak from that (at least, I hope it was intentional) it becomes a valid reason. People are likely to feel disconnected from the balancing process in Lusternia when they have no idea what's going until their skills get ganked in an announce post at some point. This just leads to frustration because there's no open dialogue or any real way to get things fixed.

Ostensibly "you could just ask your envoys", but frankly, being actually informed of changes is a massive waste of any given envoy's time because they would have to reiterate all the current discussions and so forth on the wiki. I try to make Alianna keep anything pertaining to specifically our skills updated in a guild file but I don't blame her for the fact that it's often left behind much, really.

On top of that, the appointed nature of the envoy position prevents anyone but the envoy from getting any input on the situation. If you have a crap envoy, or you simply don't agree with them, well, you're :censor:ed, because it's not like you have any way to contest what they're putting up there. The veto setup also seems to lead to some heavily political situations, too, though I won't bring any up by name, and some amount of transparency -would- correct that. EDIT: Actually, it might make it worse now that I think about it, need to think about that some more.

I understand the idea that you don't want to be held accountable for what you say and do - and some of the time, it's valid, because good decisions aren't always popular - but it's also understandable that people want to know WTF is going on with their skills and feel like their voice matters. The current state of affairs probably isn't the ideal compromise there.

Also, my posts seem to have a larger spacing than they did before while I'm typing them and I don't think I changed anything, whose fault is that? Did I click the wrong button by accident?

EDIT: Slightly seperate topic - the concern about adding coding time is valid, but the alternative appears to be simply not covering issues with the game that could, and I believe should, be covered. I've discussed this at length on another thread in the past, but with so few slots available, amongst other things, anything other than what's considered to be "game balance" by envoy consensus simply doesn't have room for consideration.

If it's an intentional loss of quality for expediency I can sympathise because there simply isn't enough time to do -everything- right, but it's still a little frustrating. Then again, I guess it would be frustrating if it took arseloads more time to get stuff done than it does now, so it's probably a grass is greener thing. Also we don't have enough volunteer coders.

What if something gets vetoed? Do the admin still take a glance at it and override the veto if the idea is absolutely tony the tiger grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat! ? Or once a veto always a veto?

]

Of course it was intentional idiodic leetspeek, you should know me well enough by know to know when i'm being facetious

Yeah, I know that, and you should know I know that and am being intentionally snippy. :P

yeah, sod off you little git

Generally, if the idea is "grrrrrrrrrreat," the envoys override it themselves.

I don't know about people seeing the whole process, but I think the vetos should be made public though. Simply because you have a few veto happy envoys, who if the skill change is not in the favor of their orgs like to through vetos out like crazy. Yes, there are a few of those kind of envoys. And it would be good to put pressure on those people who veto everything under the sun. I think if they had to be accountable for their vetos, they wouldn't veto everything for stupid reasons.

And no I don't mean truly acceptable vetos, I mean the ones that are like "No I veto it, because it will make X org better than Y org, and we want to be more OP."

Nay, even the illustrious Tony the Tiger himself cannot save a grrrrrrrrreat idea from a veto without an override.