> -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de > Xavier Antoviaque > Envoyé : samedi 5 juin 2010 18:27 > À : [email protected] > Objet : Re: [HackIt Bar] Social Contract - First Draft > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:28 +0200, david blanchard wrote: > > 1. We will be open and transparent > > > [David] Most of the times, this should be true. But if we have some > > storytelling in the game and we want to surprise the players > > (typically events, ARGs, etc), then we spoil the players if this is > > public. I think we’ll need to define smaller groups within the > > community who share the discussions on these topics, but not involve > > everyone especially the ones who want to play the game ‘for real’, > > without spoilers. > > I understand what you are trying to tackle, but there are several > issues > with this approach. If we define groups, those who have access to the > storyline and those who don't, we put a barrier to contributions. And > the rules about who should be in the group are very hard to define - > those who don't have access but would like to will be frustrated, and > those who do will be tempted to play favorites, by telling some of > their > friends and not others - it seems to be quite the opposite of the type > of dynamics we want to implement. > > I think we should look at it the way we usually do for movies, in > everyday life. It's very easy to know the full story of a movie before > going to see it - you just have to look on the Internet, or ask friends > who have already seen it. However, even if we can, we generally don't > do > it, or just enough to know if we'll like it. And discussions about > movies tend to be self regulated - those who spoil the surprise to > others are usually reprimanded, and at the end it happens quite rarely. > > We could do the same - discuss the storyline at a specific place, where > it would take a voluntary effort to go. It would allow those who want > to > participate to be there, without closing the door, but still allow > those > who want the thrill of the surprise to have it. > > Of course, we could still come back on it if we experience situations > where it doesn't work, so we can change the paragraph in the social > contract to add a "as much as possible" at the end. > [David] I used the wrong words, we actually agree. What I was trying to say is that people who don't want to be spoiled can do so. The information remains public but people can chose to access it or not. So we do define different groups but people are free to join them. For this I guess we'll be creating specific mailing lists so that people can decide to subscribe or not.
> > > We consider that the ability to earn money is important to grow the > > project and allow contributors to work full time on the project. But > > we want to do it right, by avoiding the dishonesty and double dealing > > that generates anti-social behaviors in companies. > > > > [David] This is a bit vague and negative for me. I’d rather say > > something like ‘we consider that creating value and making the > company > > profitable is an objective and a contract we share with our > investors. > > But we think it should be done by clearly stating how the contracts > > and objectives we share with the other stakeholders (players, > > shareholders, employees, contributors, contractors...) are compatible > > with that scheme, to avoid a double dealing that can generate > > anti-social behaviors in companies. Through transparency and > > community-building, we want to induce all stakeholders […]’ > > I agree with what you wrote, but I think it's too complex, we need to > have something that could be more easily understood, and that would be > a > bit more appealing. For example, "creating value" won't be understood > the way you mean it, the way you say "we share with our investors" make > them stand out of the rest of the stakeholders... > > What about: > > "We consider that building a profitable company is an important > objective, allowing the project to grow and contributors to work full > time on it. But we want to do it right, and avoid the double dealing > that generates anti-social behaviors in companies. Through transparency > and community-building, we want to induce all stakeholders (players, > shareholders, employees, contributors, contractors...) to reveal their > true expectations and preferences, and find solutions that are > practical > and efficient for all involved parties." > > > 1. Our priorities will be the players and the community > > > > We will be guided by the needs of the players and the > > community at large (gaming, free software...). We will place > > their interests first in our priorities. > > > > [David] well… I definitely have an issue with the sentence I > underline > > because I find it contradictory with the paragraph 3, which states > > that we are trying to define a contract that bonds all stakeholders. > > > > Unless you include all stakeholders in ‘the players and the > > community’, including the investors, but then it is ambiguous. > > Yes, it's true, this part is ambiguous. Maybe we could define the > community (and explicitly include all stakeholders in it). Saying it > this way is almost obvious, but it's still a way to say that we won't: > > 1) Have the "artist complex" (ie "I don't care you want this feature, > it's not in the VISION of what the game should be!") > > 2) Have the villa with swimming pool complex (ie ripping off players, > or > even the project, or shareholders, just to get a quick profit) > > > · Most of the time it should not be too difficult to position > > ourselves on this topic, because if our long term goal is to make > good > > and successful games, then all stakeholders share the same objective, > > and we should have a long term view and be able to contradict > whoever > > is too short term oriented. This can be the investors (we can > > definitely disagree with them if they want short term returns and we > > have a longer term objective as long as we clearly state it in the > > shareholder agreement ) but it could also be the players if we are > > convinced that a decision is good for the game. This should not > happen > > too often of course because we want to build with the people not > > against them, but I think it should be theoretically possible. > > This is important (the goal of making good and successful games, and > being long-term oriented), and I think it should be explicitely stated > in the social contract - can you put it there? > > > · But if we take a extreme exemple (‘cas limite’ in French, > not > > sure about the translation) for the sake of the discussion, and > > imagine a decision that would make the players/other parts of the > > community happy but that would kill the company and fail the trust > > that employees and investors have put in us, what would be your > > position ? It might be a naïve question until I find a good example > of > > that, but still I’m interested to know your thoughts on it. > > The issue with extreme questions is that they call for extreme > answers. : ) I'd say it depends on the actual example - ie, what would > you do if this decision, that would kill the company, would also end a > war? > [David] I think I'm more or less ok with all of this. I'll rework the social contract with this and with our yesterday's discussion in mind, and we'll see how it goes. Basically I think I'll do it this way : - the social contract is written by the committee, not by the studio. - the social contract defines the rules to be followed by all stakeholders within the community. The studio is one of them. - There will be a dedicated part that specifies the rules to be followed by the studio as a member of the community. - This way, the social contract bonds the company as a member of the community, not per se. So, in 5 years from now, if big bad evil investors have the control over the studio and want to change its organization, the divorce can happen between the community and the studio without damaging too much both of them. Of course, this should not happen as long as the founders have control over the studio, given our belief that it will be thanks to the community that the studio can become successful (and vice versa). But, extreme questions require extreme answers... _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
