You brought a bunch of good ideas in you last message GspRooster. You are right about the fact that it's a poorly organized project. I might be (or I have been) the closest thing to a leader but on the other hand, I don't really know what I'm doing... or what needs to be done. I have my own DnD campaign world but I've never done one collectively. Sure, it works better alone but it's time consuming and it probably won't be as original as the group project. I admit that at first, I taught that the first step was to get a map because that's how the last project proceeded. The top-down approach is working well for mappers but not so well for the others. (Top down) So far, I have to admit that this as gotten us nowhere.
On the other thread, I never said that it was a bad idea to post descriptions; I just said it was better to stay vague to avoid conflicts with other part of the project. I do not like the fact that some idea has to be cancelled or postponed since it hinder creativity. In fact, I wanted (and still think about it but haven't had the time to do it properly yet) to submit some templates and maybe submitting an idea. Every idea you be open for discussion. I think it's a good idea to know what kind of content people like. By the time we start mapping, we could already have souls to add to the map.
As for how to proceed: how about the least bad form of government: democracy? I consider that not every idea should have his poll. Your civs for example, normally we should not have to vote about them, they would be accepted as long as they are well thought and if they fit in the campaign but still open for suggestion for improvements/modification. Unless someone as a good reason to disagree with your idea, there are no valid points to discard the content. Yet, sometimes a voting is required. Then what?
Do we go with a:
50%+1: a clear majority,
Problem: we need to find a way to achieve 50% and that is not always easy when there are many choices but that’s how United States democracy works... (Where it doesn’t work even with 2 choices) Also, how to avoid stalemate: 50/50? Someone could have a special vote, meaning he would have 2 votes instead of one in case of a tie vote.
Two turn election: we only keep the 2 leading choices for the second turn in order to achieve a majority of votes. That way, we are sure that the winner has clear support. The problem is that it would be more complicated but that’s how France democracy works... (Where people seems to elect president they don’t even like)
Plurality: (or first past the post) the choice that get the most votes win, even if it’s just 2 votes.
Problem: lack of votes gives a poor legitimacy to the choice but that’s how Canadian democracy works… (Where people get elected with 30% of the votes of the 60% of people that voted)
How to avoid stalemate here?
That being said: polls not always, threads yes. I mean, every idea should have his thread. But there is a problem: huge number of threads = confusion.
Solution1: the project gets his own subsection on the forum. The possibility to have sections inside the sub form would be even better but I doubt it will. A simpler solution would be to have an index or a table of content in a sticky thread.
Solution 2: CWBP2 Wiki
I am reluctant to use it because it brings us farther from the community. There are also security concerns…
Another thing that I learn: if you want something done, it’s better not to wait on others because it might never get done. Especially if you keep the idea to yourself. So if you think that something should be done, like opening a new thread, go for it! This is all our project and its success or failure depends on everyone contribution.
EDIT: TAG added