How do you know when other people consider you a member though? What's the percentage consensus you need to achieve? I can't rightly consider myself to be a member knowing that I also have to fulful this secondary criterea and not having any information on whether I'm eligible or not yet. I mean, if I were to post a thread somewhere saying "Woot! I'm now a member!" would it be true if more people responded with "Yay for you!" or words to that effect, than those who said "Wait a minute, since when?"

Ash

I think that one thing that has struck me about the site is that it does serve four distinct functions and it serves all of them through the exact same front end medium which can sometimes blur the meaning of what has been said above.

(1) - the site presents the administrative side of running the Collective Endeavour booth at various conventions. Its a very open process - fully visible from the very front page of the site. Thats great because it shows how openly things are ran and gets over that this site is more than just a talking shop. It also speaks to retailers that CE and its products are a long term serious venture.

(2) - it is a site that encourages UK games designers to come and gain aid and advice from fellow countrymen as a mutual venture. The open design help is utterly invaluable (for me) both in direct advice and seeing other games go through the process.

(3) - it is, from time to time, a place for like-minded people to talk gaming and gaming theory in relation to their games. Whilst I have rarely seen any off-topic conversations on the site there have been some excellent theory discussions.

(4) - it acts in some cases as a touch-point for a number of publishers in their own personal little forum on the site. It was natural that Andrew would publish our Cold City AP on this site because thats how we know Cold City (rather than say the CGS site)

There will be people attracted to the site through (3) and (4) because of the quality of the discussion, the people they know and because everyone yearns for more and more information in the internet age. They may even post a fair bit but that wouldn't make them 'members' I assume, nor would it make them unwelcome?

There are others who will come here - or have been directed here - who will be doing (2),(3) and (4). These are the people who are designing and using the forums to help with that project. These, again I assume, are the potential members.

It's the leap to being part of (1) thats the instinctive bit - having been a online community 'leader' for many years I am SO feeling the idea that you, the potential member should know and feel confident that you can and are a member when you become one. Systems and processes are there for people to subvert and abuse. Your own conscience on the other hand is a little tougher to handle!! I think its also about knowing how and when you can contribute. There's judging a time dedication and a monetary thing as well - not just in buying into the stalls, but also getting your hands on a few of the games so that you can be confident that you can pitch them to punters when you are 'on duty'. There's a commitment to yourself as well, to whether you want to take that plunge and be part of that collective, mutual grouping. These are the things I have been mulling over (in the positive, I may add)

I'm not sure whether this has added anything or whether it has just thread-jacked this away from Games Expo a little more than it was already. Lets see whether I can bring it back on track with ....

I intend to be at Games Expo, with at least a very near to done Duty and Honour and I would love to be included on the stall in some capacity.

Hurrah

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

This is the crux of my argument for a more structured approach to membership: feeling like a member isn't the only requirement for membership. From previous discussion, it's clear that at least a significant amount of the current membership has to think you're a member too. If it weren't for this factor then anyone could be a member just by saying 'I'm a member'. So in fact Greg, if you and/or a fair amount of other members of the CE (in collusion) can't tell someone if they're in or not then nobody gets in because, as far as I can discern, acceptance of a new member is a group agreement made amongst the existing membership. You just don't formalise it or present any kind of guidelines for seeking that approval.

Now, I can understand wanting to give the CE an informal atmosphere, but I don't think anything would be lost by providing some more formal guidelines for joining. A simple vote would be enough, and let other members state their own reasons for a yay or nay. It doesn't make you 'the man', it just makes you more organised and there is nothing wrong, shameful, capitalist, elitist or morally corrupt about that.

If it really were just about feeling you're a part of the site, I could join right now simply by saying "I feel like I'm a part of the site."

Ash

Point one. We have someone roll in and say "I'm a member" and spouting this, that and the next thing. Fine, that's all good (and Neil Gow's post above is just on the money about the different things people are doing here). But, when someone does that, at the end of every keyboard are people, and are their faces being scrunched up with quizzical gazes being shot at the screen? Or is it knowing nods of agreement and a non-plussed acceptance that sure, no problem, of course he's a member, why's he making a big deal about it? For me, when we say "oh, who's in for this con" and someone says "oh, I'd like to be in" I know right then if I'm cool with it. If so, then it's not even noticeable to me, it was so trivial that Tim Gray was a member here even when circumstances dictated that his online time was severely curtailed. If I don't think they're there yet (and that "yet" is crucial to me) then I'll openly post "hey, hold on, I'd like to see more from you" or whatever. I don't think it's cool to have a secret vote or a black ball or whatever.

Point two. So, do you?

I tried to do that last year if you recall, and I still don't really understand what happened to the proposal, plus after the hoo-hah about CE membership and attending venues along with the CE the last time I brought the subject up, I didn't want to suggest it again in case the same can of worms got opened.

Ash

I'll write more nearer UKGE... but suffice to say, and this applies to anyone who has not been on the booth before, you are welcome to be on the booth when you feel you are a member here, and importantly the peers on here feel you are a member too. That's it.

If you are posting here regularly, contributing in a positive way and engaging in the processes here then you are in.

Part of that is, crucially, having that feeling yourself of "hey, I am a member of the Collective now". Rich Stokes is someone who found that step before Dragonmeet this year, having been a regular on the board for some time. Maybe Rich can say something on this.

I should say I'm no Guardian To The Door™, I can only speak for myself. So, how about I ask four people I've seen take the step. If they want to, I'd be grateful if we could hold off posting more until one (or all) of these guys step in. After that we can all chime in again, because it's an important point.

Per, you stepped on up as soon as we posted about membership. Could you talk about that?

Tim, you kind of had the same issues as Ash with knowing when you'd feel confident you could consider yourself a member. Do you have any take on this?

Graham, Rich. In my mind you were both quite bold in your beliefs that you were contributing and deserved to be seen as peers. Maybe that's just my perception but do you have any thoughts on this?

This is how I got involved. I hung around and posted. I talked to the CE members at conventions, playtested games with them and ran things like Best Friends at Dragonmeet.

This went on for a few conventions. The process of talking over beer, and email, was important, I think.

Eventually, every time I said "I'm not a member of the Collective Endeavour, but...", someone said "Well, you probably are, you know".

Now I probably consider myself a Collective Endeavour member. I haven't actually bought into a CE stall, but I think I'd be allowed to, if I wanted to.

Graham

I got tapped up by Kenrick when I was tip-toeing around SG, and then again more heartily by Malcolm at GenCon.

For me, I think I'll be happy when I can (a) have something to put on the stall and (b) be able to demo and run more than a couple of the other CE games so I can contribute to the endeavours of others on the stall.

I thoroughly intend to have half of this done by Conpulsion and the other half done by GamesExpo.

Until then I'll help where I can with APs and suggestions and print-services and other stuff like that. I've seen the CE booth in action and I'll be ready to buy in when I am convinced that I can add to it, rather than be carried by it.

(and just one observation - to someone who comes to the site 'new' everyone who is already here is pretty much considered 'a member' until it is pointed out otherwise. I'm stunned that Graham and Tim - who I thought were central parts of the set-up - are indeed (relatively)recent additions!)

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I got tapped up by Kenrick when I was tip-toeing around SG

He needs to stop doing that.

Graham

It's a social thing, not a formal agreement.

Members of the Collective Endeavour are agreeing to buy into a stall together, so it's a process of negotiation: are we happy buying in together? Graham wants to buy in: are we happy with that or should we suggest he sell his stuff on Pelgrane's stall, like he did last year?

What Gregor's saying (stop me if I'm wrong) is: generally, people will be welcome if they've contributed positively.

Just my opinion, obviously.

Graham

Not at all, what I didn't 'get' (and still don't to a large degree) is how one becomes a member. I am still very strongly of the opinion that there should be some kind of set-in-stone and quantifiable process to joining the CE, even if it just boils down to 'once you've made X postings on the site, everyone votes'. I'm all for helping each other out, but find it difficult to do so when I can't tell what I'm allowed to do and what offers would be considered taboo.

Anyway. When I enquired last year I was also told that you probably weren't even going to have a boothe, and it quickly became clear that I wasn't going to be considered 'in' enough in time for the event even if you did. The feeling I got was a rather negative one, that I wasn't welcome on the stall, so I started investigating other options. I was, as I think I made clear at the time, quite happy to assist in the running of the stall and contribute my share towards paying for it. At the time it seemed a far more likely bet for me to look elsewhere for help, which is what I did, hence my subsequent absence.

Ash

...the original thread is here for everyone to see. In it you can see that we said "Look, for UKGE we're going to stick with what we had at Dragonmeet. Let's revisit in June, which we did. The questions for us were: can we be a useful place by June? Are games developing on the site? Are people feeling like they were members by then?

So, after Games Expo we said: great, we've got people using this site and feeling part of something bigger than just disparate elements clubbing together for purely financially reasons (though, crucially, please note that the financial reason for each publisher here is non-zero).

At Dragonmeet, I'll be straight up, I was a bit disappointed that we only had Tim and Rich joining. But I'm sure Graham and Iain would have been on the booth with their own books had they known they would have stuff (Iain didn't have anything by then for various reasons, and Graham got Play Unsafe to near to the con for him to be sure).

So, the question for anyone who has been posting here is for themselves: do you feel a member? I can't tell you if you're in or not. You have to take that leap in your head of feeling part of the group.

If you can't do that then I'd suggest this isn't the place for you.

If you can, then, well, it was kind of obvious in hindsight that at some undefined point you became part of the furniture.

At least, that's how I see it. I, personally, am strongly against one guy saying "X has to be in" when everyone else doesn't feel X fits here, or X doesn't feel part of it themselves. I'm also strongly against one guy saying X can't be in because I don't get along with him or whatever,when clearly X fits in here with most everyone else and has mentally committed themselves to being a positive contribution to this site.

I've got a notion about what Collective Endeavour is in my head and its kind of woolly. I figure its a new kind of group and getting your head round it is the same kind of leap from deeply trad games to full-on left-field hippy GMless ones.

My perception is that you need to get some things done in terms of playing games, reporting back, offering to lend a hand and generally contributing in order to be a "Member" (can't believe Rich hasn't made a double-entendre by now).

Having a set in stone mechanic for membership seems alien to the whole concept, its a matter of buying in to what's being done and getting on the wavelength, then putting yourself into action. Number of posts is a daft way of doing things (more quality that counts and how do you rate that on a scale of 1 to 10?) and votes seems a bit elitist in mutulist setting.

I would think to be a member of the CE you'd have to be active in promoting and developing the games here abouts and of your own devising. Maybe run someone else's games at conventions, answer playtesting calls (out of a genuine interest for the game, and to help a fellow developer) rather than wracking up your Number of Games Playtested total (because 50 gets you a membership!). Etc.

But I'm the new kid on the block who shows up every now and then to mouth off, so what do I know? Just offering a view on how things "look" from over here.

Hope that helps (thought I doubt it will)

Gaz

I have to make the obvious "member" joke and say:

"Oooooh, MATRON!"

(Happy now Gaz? :^) )

Then I could make the obvious Monty Python joke and say:

"I'm a member and so's my wife!"

which hopefully means the end of that and nobody else will need to make those jokes.

(more serious comments to follow)

And here he is "tapping up" Iain...

(that really is the end of the jokes for now)

I've been happy to help out as and where I can from the word go, but am somewhat limited in my capacity to do so. I offered to help pay for the last stall when one member had difficulty. I wanted to be part of the stall at Games Expo last year and was quite happy to help out, but was knocked back because I wasn't a member (which I don't have a problem with, but it kind of makes it difficult for me to help out). I wouldn't mind playtesting for people but for the fact that I don't have a regular group and have enough problems finding playtesters for my own stuff. I contribute as and when I feel I can on the forums. I'm happy to help, but I feel that I'm not being allowed to do so. Is this really mutuality, because it feels like exclusivity.

I said 'number of posts' because it represents activity on the forums, whereas just existing on them without posting is no good means of determining participation. Sure, people might just post and post and post to get their quotient up, but I think we can all tell the difference between useful stuff and spam.

As for votes being elitist, the existing system boils down to the precise same thing - an agreement between members. If anything it's more elitist than a simple honest vote since there is no easily addressable feedback for prospective members. (see also below) To me it feels somewhat cliquey, like standing around outside the club house waiting to be let in. At least with a vote I could see that something was being done, that I wasn't just being ignored or something. Becoming a member would necessarily seem to require existing members discussing the applicant actively, but this is not a visible process at present and nor should it be as it could lead to bickering and bad feelings. Providing a vote offers that visibility to the applicant while also providing a structured forum within which existing members can air their views and concerns.

My mind is very much one that obeys the rules and regulations. Now, firstly, I know I can't be a member unless I think I am. That's easily dealt with, it's a simple change of perception, a mental on/off switch if you will. However I also know that I need other peoples' approval. I therefore cannot consider myself to be a member until I know that I have that approval. This leaves me in something of a quandry. It seems like a breach of etiquette, or worse just plain sycophantry, to go around asking people "Am I a member yet?" On a psychological level I also suspect that it would only damage my chances. My only recourse is to hope that somebody actually comes out and says "You're a member" in the course of conversation. I could end up being a member for months without even knowing it because I just don't feel right asking. I'm a very self-conscious person, though I may not often show it.

Ash

I'm afraid I have to agree with Ash here Gregor, if this is the definition of being a member of CE then I doubt I would ever feel a member. Its just too subjective. I won't ever feel that I am a member unless I think that others would agree, and according to you I'll never know if they agree or not until I make the claim and get accepted, or rejected. Its really a terribly fuzzy notion.

I can't help but feel that what you are proposing equals membership in CE is much the same as "are you in my gang" things from school, which I'd rather hoped to see the back of when I turned 18 :) Although such things work alright for the more social amongst us others (and I know I fall into this second category and suspect Ash may be too) were never in anyone's gang, because we were just never comfortable with such notions, or we never 'got' it, or because we simply couldn't play the social game well enough to get an invite.

I've been posting here a while now, asking for input on my game and offering (at least from time to time) what help I can with other people's, but I still have no idea what being a member would feel like, and its something that has confused me pretty much from day one. I get that the community here is averse to hard and fast rules for such things, for risk of turning into some sort of dictatorship or elite, and I sympathise with that, but I don't think the current system is very friendly to new people either.

Put it another way. Can I be a member if I don't drink with you? If I don't drink? If I can never come to conventions? If you don't like my game? If I don't like your game? If you don't like my posting style? If you don't like me? (and in which case, which you?) If one member doesn't like me? If I don't like a member? It seems like I could post here for years, help every member with their games, playtest my socks off, and still never be a member for intangible reasons that have nothing to do with gaming, publishing, or the forum. Is that the intention?

Solipsist RPG Website

Well, Graham was one of those who vexed and wondered about whether he had membership (maybe, he still does?, but I totally see him a member here). Tim Gray was the same.

I'm sure David Donachie didn't think he was a member at first, at all. Maybe couldn't even conceive of a time when he would be. Then, one day, he realised that somehow he'd become one, or at least could be one. (I'm no mind reader.)

So, I guess my advice to anyone is if you're unsure, just ask. Start a new thread and say something like "OK, I feel like right now I'm a member here, but I'm not sure that everyone else thinks so. What do I need to do to? Or is this just a redundant question?"

No harm, no foul. I imagine we'll get a mixture of replies from "sures", "no way", "do more of this" or "do that first" to "hey, you did this for me, of course you're a member" and "oh, i thought you already were".

Oh, and big point. Mutualism is a two-way thing (well, a many-way thing but you get the point). This isn't about what you can do for me, but what we can do for each other. So that cuts both ways. You want help with your games? If you're a member here then we have to help you.

So when exactly did I feel like I'd made it from "some bloke on the forums" to "member of the CE"? I dunno, I can't really say there was a specific point in time when it happened. There wasn't an email from Malcolm or Gregor or someone saying "Welcome to the club, here's the keys to the executive lav and a video showing you how to do the secret handshake". It was just, well, when the question came up it was obvious that I was.

I can't speak for anyone else and won't pretend to. But I'll explain what the CE is to me:

The CE is isn't just a forum/blog/website. It's also not just a stall at a con. It's a collection of like-minded people who have common interests working together to help each other with a variety of RPG projects. I don't mean designs, specifically, because that's not all we talk about here. There's the Theory stuff too, which connects and relates to design, but isn't only of use to designers. There are discussions about specific games too and other stuff.

It's more than that too. I mean, essentially the CE is a bunch of guys I know who I hang out with. I hang out with them here on this forum. I hang out with them at conventions. I have most of the games published by the members. That's not because I thought "I'd better buy this game, it was written by a CE member" it's because I thought "I better buy this game, it sounds like it kicks arse and has some interesting mechanics, it'll be fun to play".

Because everyone here is mates first and "business associates"/"RPG philosophers" (or whatever) a very distant second and that generates a very different approach to things. It's not like a Yacht club with a charter and a chairman and a waiting list and yearly mooring fees or any of that bollocks. It's fundamentally just a just a bunch of mates hanging out together and offering advice and help to each other, and talking about this hobby of ours.

So, no, there isn't a set of criteria you can fullfill to get "membership" of the Collective Endeavour. There isn't a list of boxes you can tick off or tokens you can collect and trade in for a membership card. There isn't a star chamber deciding who's in and who's out.

I think that what you're confusing is the idea that there's a core of the "proper" Collective Endeavour, and then these other people who post on the website, but aren't really "in the club". Which is bollocks: everyone* is welcome here equally. I don't give a toss if you have one post or one thousand, if you created your account one year or one hour ago. If you've got interesting shit to say, I'm all ears and if you want help with something I think I can help with, I'll help you. If you want to share space on the stall, obviously everyone there needs to feel comfortable with your presence. If you can't be confident that they would feel OK about you being there, then you're probably not relaxing into the mutualism of the whole thing.

* well, almost everyone. I know I'd be objecting to Jack Thompson joining up for example.

Oh, after I posted I then "Hammed" David's post when I saw it. (So, David, at least aksimet doesn't think you're a member...)

And I'm totally happy with Rich moving these posts and stuff. I think it's great.

Oh, by the way, no one even blinked when Neil Gow just outed himself as wanting to be on the stand at UKGE. See?

I also refuse to deal in hypothetical "what if" scenarios for "would this be membership?". It's frankly bullshit.

We're not dealing in hypotheticals, we're dealing with real people, y'know?

Are we putting people in boxes or looking at each other, and ourselves, as people?

I think I'm a contributor to CE. I think what's muddying the waters is the participation at conventions.

I've now got two games that I feel are worth pushing but I haven't done it through the CE set-up for a number of reasons, the chief of which is that I've got other commitments (notably Pelgrane Press) that I think would prevent me from giving the level of support to the range of CE games that con participation demands.

But I've got no reason to think that this devalues my input even if my range of experience does not include running stuff at the CE stand.

So yeah, what Neil said.

Steve, if you wanted to buy into a booth then you're in.

When you're a member (contributor/participant, whatever) the difference between being on a booth and not is only whether you opted into or out of paying for the booth at a particular convention.

But you can't buy into a booth unless you "buy into" the idea of being a member.

Does that help any?

And if everyone else says you can, right?
http://www.collective-endeavour.com/node/747
(Incidentally I can't seem to find the thread that was spun off from that one anywhere.)

Ash

...woot!

And with that out of the way, a small point.

I have a tiny name. Seven letters. No middle names. No hidden extras. For some reason, regardless of where I am, who I am with and to what extent these people know me there seems to be this undeniable force that takes command of folk and forces them to tag my surname onto my christian name. I am, and will forever be it seems 'NeilGow'.

It's Neil. Just Neil. Plain Neil.

(Of course now this is just going to be like a red rag to a bull...)

Neil

Apologies, I missed this thread completely, but here's my bit.

Member? Not member? To be honest, it's not a big deal to me, really. I think I was thinking more along "what can I do for the CE" than vice versa, when I originally stepped up. That's because I think the CE is an important community, not only in the UK, but worldwide. Yes, I mean that.

I can post on this website. I can promote CE-related games, I can even participate in events alongside other CE people.

Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

...I think Malcolm and Gregor roped me in at Games Expo last year.

It *is* a difficult balancing act, this. While wanting to keep things informal and democratic, in reality the senior members can easily be seen as holding a bit of power by not making the criteria transparent... Not that I think this is an intention, but it can easily be seen as "you're in when we say you are".

As I understand it, the criteria are basically to be UK-based and to have hung around on the forums for a while, making a modest positive contribution and conveying the impression that existing members would be happy to hang out with you. Stall presence is unnecessary; it's an extra.

I suppose, looking at those two paras, there does need to be the option for people to say, somehow, "Hang on, that Tim Gray is always insulting people and ate way more than his share of cake!" I guess if anyone felt that way they'd have to just say it openly (but politely) in a relevant thread.

Tim Gray
Silver Branch Games
www.silverbranch.co.uk

So I'm still Spam am I? Blast that Askimet!

Okay so you don't want to deal with hypotheticals Gregor, fair enough, but that's the inevitable consequence of having something as fuzzy as "You're a member when you feel you and we agree" as the criterion.

For the record it surprises me that you think I'm a member. I certainly didn't think I was / am. That may surprise you, but I would say it's the core of the issue. The conditions may seem clear to you, but they certainly don't seem clear to everyone. It would never have occurred to me to think myself a member of an organization with an actual physical presence (the stall, games list, and publisher forums) and a financial component, just because I thought I was.

I think Tim has hit it on the head. There is a fear that the existing members get to include or exclude who they like on an unstated and opaque basis. As Ash keeps pointing out "being accepted or approved of by the other members" is an important part of membership, and there is no formal process for how that works. In fact the concept of membership seems to be muddy enough that it isn't even clear who is a member of the group that has to approve of your being a member!

I can happily live with the muddiness, in the end it doesn't matter that much, but I can't say I'm keen on it.

Solipsist RPG Website

Neil, point taken. I will endeavour to call you just Neil from now on (but I do point above at the use of "Tim Gray" and "David Donachie" etc.)

Tim makes it super clear for me and I totally agree.

Now, for everyone else seeing walls that need to be there and need to be jumped over. Where are the walls? You're here debating the issue, right? So, are you part of the community already and debating it, or are you outside some wall throwing rocks over at other people?

If you think you're outside, then maybe (a) stop throwing rocks, and (b) go away.

Ash, David: I just do not see the criteria changing to satisfy you. It's healthy that you bring it up but the point is now being laboured. I don't see a peep from anyone happily self-associating as a member here saying "let's vote them in, or not". (If everyone starts saying that's what should happen then it'll happen organically.)

For the umpteenth (and last) time I have to point out that there is no secret mailing list of inner or more-important members list. Anywhere. Sure, there are strong established presences on here but that's from merit and contribution.

And as for that thread Ash, that was October. I personally think you have added valuable contributions since then.