Network Six

(26/7/2010 2:25AM)Taff Media Wrote:  It should not be franchised, it should not be restricted. It should be a separate section on the main forum page like "Network Chatter" is and it should be there so that all the people join the game who have no franchises can participate in the forum and improve there skills ready to join the game. The only administration involved should be an "Overseer" to make sure that the channels to not encroach on the main game and are "game correct" i.e. they have the different channel numbers, one user dose not post tens of channels and bombard the section with complicated and counter productive ideas.

Back to Sandbox Im apposed to both ideas given. I also do not agree with how the concept has been hijacked by certain members on the forum.

Isn't option two basically what you have described? It is only "franchised" in effect of the overseer, who would be able create graphical elements for the platform, as since it is "not restricted", the job of the overseer would be almost literally nothing otherwise.

(26/7/2010 2:25AM)Taff Media Wrote:  I am offering to draw up more detailed plans, rules and guidelines to steer the conversation and concept in the right direction I will do that as long as the network planning for sandbox is put on hold whilst i do that so its not time wasted on my part.

This poll has just under a week to run and nothing additional will be done until at least that date so you can draw up some plans if you like and we'll put Sandbox on hold for a bit.

I understood Calum's original idea and I have been supportive of that. But I also disagreed with both options available, that's why I have made my views known.

The Network part of game requires restriction... which could possibly damage the reputation of members. This new area of Sandbox however does need a lot less restriction in the way Calum described. But the way some members have viewed it has got it lost in translation. I admit I never followed after a few people gave their ideas and suddenly it became Network policy.

I had always said Sandbox was in best hands of the DofD shortly before resigning, and I feel that has been the correct decision. I have always had faith in David's view of the Network and what needs doing, but we need to give them the correct ideas for them to make that decision.

On a side note I only brought up SWW because I used it to compare the Community's handling of both projects which appeared roughly at the same time. I realise there is little to tie these to each other.

If there was so much opposition to both proposals then why did no one respond to my post in 'Unofficial Sandbox Thread' ? The post had been there for several days before this poll was opened and not one person responded in the thread!

(26/7/2010 4:34PM)cardiff4 Wrote:  If there was so much opposition to both proposals then why did no one respond to my post in 'Unofficial Sandbox Thread' ? The post had been there for several days before this poll was opened and not one person responded in the thread!

That doesn't matter, Rhys. I have not had an opinion on Sandbox because as DofTV, I was required to remain impartial, unbiased and maintain a level head when discussing future propsals to the game in the Network-wide interest. It is well known that summer is a quiet period here because of exams and other things. Nobody here is angry. Cool beans we are!

Shouldnt this of finished by now?

It should have closed on the 31st with Option #2 the winner.

Thank you for your votes and views. Sandbox is currently on hold while Calum (Taff Media), by his request, works on his own ideas to help the concept. Until that time, no more will be done.

However, Six Worldwide will be looked at in the coming days as I draw up some proposals for the service.

Thanks Rhys

I have nearly finished a plan, ill upload it as a .pdf file