a suggestion

I have a suggestion since there have been some issues at tables for a longer period.

Why dont the chief/leader for each larger team (10 or more members ?) have a chat meeting every week and the smaller team with one representative for all smaller teams ? maybe this could take of some tensions and make this place a better and more fun place to hang around ?

  well said diablo.....Sad thing is these chief's can't even say nh (not all chiefs ) at a table let alone chat with each other..

Your right bad communications hurts the site....BREAK THE ICE chiefs....Talk to each other get somethings changed...

If you don't participate in trying to help this site what are ya here for..Surely not to be the one who has the most chips sheesh..

All this drama for fake game chips...

Can it be done CHIEF'S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Way back there was a group yahoo discussion for the chiefs every month....it generally was just a gab fest but things did get ironed out first if need be

 But sadly nowadays many chiefs  wont even join the TLU  to  discuss issues  regarding the sites improvement... let alone  gather  for a   monthly   and lets not even think of a  weekly meeting..

I not a chief and don't ever want to be one.
But beening fun like it use to be here will never ever happen again.
I have look looked for other site like fc who have teams play.
But other site watching how fc fighting arguing and dieing over pure bs they to
smart to start that kind of site.
Fc is a dieing site and the players is killing this site over dumb bs.
I trying tell u all and that me to we all better try get along or there want be a fc soon.
I DONE SEEN NEW PLAYERS COME AND LEAVE SAME DAY ROAD.

dos wrote:

So I'm guessing that no one has read, let alone respond to, any of my posts about chiefs getting more involved in dealing with the problems on site

   I have read it....  and am fully willing to  co-operate,    I have tried numerous  times  to revive the TLU  (  not  necessarily   all Chiefs  but    the  members have  to be  chief  appointed  )    but  the  chiefs   willing  to even  appoint  members  for  the TLU is  sad..  if the chiefs  were  to ever  get together i  would be  shocked..

Im suggesting to go with the Chiefs who are active
Inactive chiefs who refuse to represent their teams
Will be exempt from discussions on voting. If so they choose
To not represent, we cannot force their opinions but, to go ahead and carry out Best choices for members of fatcat. Simple as that

So, calling out all chiefs who will be active, post here.

I just did some checking on the top eighteen teams here at Fatcat.

Of the eighteen, eleven have less then ten members.
Clubbies 1 member no chief
Avengers 2 members have never seen a post of any type from chief
Myths 3 members no chief
Fearless 2 members no post that i can remember from chief
Wont tilt 4 members no chief
Teamplay 5 members

Someone needs to contact each of the chiefs and let them know just how important it is to join the TLU.
If, at that time, they decline to be part of the group, then that team will not be able to come back at the
TLU and complain that they don't like what we are doing.
This cannot work with only five or six chiefs making the suggestions.

And, I think that the TLU should solve one problem at a time. The treads gets so crazy with ten different
ideas and the thoughts of all it gets a little overwhelming to follow the original suggestion.

This is my opinion.

Sorry to be a 'cat among the pigeons'.....but I have a few questions regarding the TLU...from memory the reason the TLU is not currently active atm...is because it couldn't come to an agreement of how the votes were to happen...i.e how many votes a team would get according to their size...has /or is this going to change?  and has the required entrance of membership to the TLU changed also?.  From my understanding ...membership required a team to have 10 members....I know there was talk of allowing smaller teams into the TLU...but from my memory the standstill came because when it came to voting within the TLU...it couldn't be decided whether to give the larger teams more than one vote due to them having more members...hence the reason why the Warriorz never joined TLU ...so has this been resolved?

Personally I believe there is no need for the TLU.....I have always made myself available to anyone on this site...should they have any problems, whether that be with my team or with asking how the site runs i.e making games etc or if they have problems  advising them where to go and how. It is also my belief that every chief should be available and are and from my experience..i.e every chief here does reply to any questions that another team may ask..this site is small and most chiefs are only too willing to help.

As for the TLU..what is its purpose?...I gather its to try and make this site better, but how?  and what agenda are they seeking? If it is to change or make suggestions for games and it helps Mufusa decipher the suggestions more easily...then that is fine...but how do you propose to go about the vote on those suggestions?......is it going to be open to ALL teams?...and will it include a representative at least from those not on a team?...  with ONE vote each (regardless of the size of the team)? Once a suggestion has been made and voted on ...is that suggestion going to be put forward to Mufusa and asked to be enacted......or are you going to ask Mufusa to take a poll on that suggestion for the whole of fatcat to decide?  Are you also expecting the TLU to vote on disciplinary matters concerning members as well?

Reason I ask, is these questions are pertinent as to whether a team will join the TLU or not.....for example I will not join the TLU if :
(a) there is more than one vote per team or
(b) all teams are not included or
(c) if the TLU had intentions of being a disciplinary body for membership

IMO  Mufusa is more than willing to listen to members suggestions.....we are all aware he does not visit THIS forum....but there is the ONSITE forum...which has a sub heading "suggestions/ ideas etc" that he WILL read----and as yet there are no suggestions there...and I am sure that if anyone has a legitimate suggestion and it has members agreeing with the suggestion ...he would create a poll and let members decide....bearing in mind that each poll should only have two options...yes I agree...or no I don't agree ...as this stops any ambiguity.  As far as disciplinary actions...these should be decided on by Mufusa ..and nobody else as he is the only person here that is impartial and has no vested interest except for trying to help the site and all its members

***For anyone not knowing how to get to ONSITE forums  ....go to your team page in lobby >>>click message board>>>then enter your user name and password (same as the one you have for poker)  OR
Go to lobby  ....there is a tab at top 'Poker Community' >>> click FatCat Forum>>enter username and password (same as one you have for poker)

sharron
i totally agree with you on how many votes per team. and i still say, one vote per team does not
matter if you have 40 or 10 one vote only.

i myself see no need for the TLU, we should be able to poll each of our own teams and bring the results
to mufasa to act upon.

right now the main issue is to have all games played here to be all TEAMPLAY. poll your team and contact
mufasa.

if a chief does not care enough to find out what his or her team wants, that chief has to live with the
outcome.

Sharron123 wrote:

Mufusa is more than willing to listen to members suggestions.....we are all aware he does not visit THIS forum.

you are mistaken, mufasa does still visit here, his last visit was on sunday 26th june.

roy0110 wrote:

Sharron123 wrote:

Mufusa is more than willing to listen to members suggestions.....we are all aware he does not visit THIS forum.

you are mistaken, mufasa does still visit here, his last visit was on sunday 26th june.

Good glad he does

MissMousse wrote:

sharron

i myself see no need for the TLU, we should be able to poll each of our own teams and bring the results
to mufasa to act upon.

The purpose of the TLU is  quite  simple...  consider it  congress and the teams  being all the states....  the teams discuss   the issue  come  to a common agreement and present the  common  solution to mufasa  ( the president  )

 That way he does not have to wade  through  10-  20  decisions from each individual team  and try and  decide  what  to make of all those  singular decisions   to  come  to a  single  conclusion as to what the members  want...



ALL the teams  discuss... then all the teams  vote....bringing ONE   idea or  solution to present    not a  conglomerate of  wishes  from each individual team...it makes mufasa's life a lot  easier     to move  forward  or  decline  what was presented..

That is  all the TLU is  for   to  come together  discuss and  come  to one  singular  final decision  voted by the majority involved..... and any discussions  regarding the amount of membership  for  different size teams was simply because  a team of  4 does not carry the same weight   as  a team of  25   within the membership..


For  example.  Say there are 9 teams in the TLU, 5 of them have  4 members  each... and  4 of them have  25  members each ... theoretically the  20 members on the 5 teams can outvote  the 100 members on the other  3 teams  .. that is  NOT a  decisive  cross  section of the membership  which was  why the  idea of larger teams having 2 members and  smaller teams having 1   member  came  from... to keep the  votes fair  within the cross  section of the membership not  individual teams...and to keep smaller teams from banding together possibly   to have their  way which isnt necessarily

Let's just say then that Fatcat is like the the U. S. Senate, there are only two Senators per state. Now,
Fatcat is a whole lot smaller than even our smallest state. Therefore, I still think that one person
per team is quite enough.

Great idea Kygal.....All i can say is the TLU worked (TEAM LEADERS UNION) and hashed out issues that have been implemented and work till this day...

What can it hurt Sharron to join it?? Give it a try......After there and you don't like it move on...
Seems since the warriors made it clear they won't join it how do you know how it will work out if you guys n gals don't give it a try...

You been here what 3 years and have no clue as to how CFC was running in it's hey day...But as i have said before Sharron your good for CFC...Just look into it can't hurt...Any major step a chief takes to help this site to me is a positive...

The team chiefs are chiefs for a reason...Get together chiefs,workout some of the problems and help CFC get back to a fun site..Which to me still is & always will be.....CFC is my home away from home...
I only want to see what's best for the site.....It takes effort..Are you chiefs willing to put fourth an effort to iron  things out or what??

Dos i haven't seen your post yet....Chief's get some things worked out.. Getting banned Should be the last resort.
There is so much more chiefs can do...Talk about pay outs, games played,time slots,etc, etc, etc...

Just a thought
BigC

BigC wrote:

  well said diablo.....Sad thing is these chief's can't even say nh (not all chiefs ) at a table let alone chat with each other..

Your right bad communications hurts the site....BREAK THE ICE chiefs....Talk to each other get somethings changed...

Can it be done CHIEF'S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Just what i wanted big c

I like most chiefs here CC roy kygal missmousse dos poolgirl and i dont know who the chief are on warriors if it is sharron (?) she is a great kiwi girl.

Please talk to each other through TLU or a chat closed for others to see,i know the people i mentioned above are all great people (sorry if i forgot some chiefs) and all want the best for this site and make it a great and fun place to be.

Well f*** it let me be the first to say i love you all lol and i had great chat time with each of you,i am a chatter not a good poker player lol

I also want to suggest a game for only chiefs and ace chiefs so all the chiefs can have a good time and a chat

dos wrote:

Sharron, if the chiefs actively "lead" their teams there would be no need for disciplinary action either by support or a quorum of chiefs, nor a concern about there being a bias. If a chief doesn't care to be involved in leading & managing the team then perhaps they should appoint a chief that has the time and willingness to do so. The site isn't going to get any better when all people do is make excuses for, or are oblivious to what site rules are being violated by either themselves or their team.  Do I need to post chat logs to prove the case?  So rather than being defensive and looking at their teams through rose colored glasses let's take the initiative and be proactive when it comes to ensuring that teammates are abiding by site rules.

I do understand the thought behind the TLU and its basic reasoning that you are trying to make Mufusa job a little simpler as well as trying to solve problems and make this site more fun......its just the process and the fairness to all members on this site that I question. I have no doubt that the intent of the TLU...every member here wants peace...every member doesn't want to see drama or see others banned...just as every member has ideas and wants to have fun...but i will say that the system by which the TLU has flaws, is complicated that could be problematic in the future. I realise it existed in the past...but did it work? and if so, why is it not still going today if it was successful and suited the needs/wants of most members on the site.  No system is perfect,as you are never going to please everyone ...but it helps if you think of all the consequences, and set guidelines (agendas) and a way to be inclusive of everyone that is fair, equal and most of all simple enough to have all participate.  But I will stress again .....the TLU should NOT be involved in any reprimand/punishment decisions of member(s) .....is anybody from TLU going to answer this question?

[/quote]

The purpose of the TLU is  quite  simple...  consider it  congress and the teams  being all the states....  the teams discuss   the issue  come  to a common agreement and present the  common  solution to mufasa  ( the president  )

 That way he does not have to wade  through  10-  20  decisions from each individual team  and try and  decide  what  to make of all those  singular decisions   to  come  to a  single  conclusion as to what the members  want...



ALL the teams  discuss... then all the teams  vote....bringing ONE   idea or  solution to present    not a  conglomerate of  wishes  from each individual team...it makes mufasa's life a lot  easier     to move  forward  or  decline  what was presented..

So Coach...this sort of voting is considered SMD (single member district--or first past the post)---can be considered undemocratic in the final outcome ...as the majority of votes COULD be eliminated... for example (using the current proposal) Should games be Teamplay or No Teamplay hypothetically results could be as follows:

No Teamplay        Teamplay Warriorz       16                       4 Bazinga         9                       10 Royal Rush     9                      11 EvilKizz          6                       8

which means that a vote of Teamplay would be taken back to TLU to vote on......but if you notice the majority of individuals voted for non teamplay----and hence you have discarded all those votes



That is  all the TLU is  for   to  come together  discuss and  come  to one  singular  final decision  voted by the majority involved..... and any discussions  regarding the amount of membership  for  different size teams was simply because  a team of  4 does not carry the same weight   as  a team of  25   within the membership..


For  example.  Say there are 9 teams in the TLU, 5 of them have  4 members  each... and  4 of them have  25  members each ... theoretically the  20 members on the 5 teams can outvote  the 100 members on the other  3 teams  .. that is  NOT a  decisive  cross  section of the membership  which was  why the  idea of larger teams having 2 members and  smaller teams having 1   member  came  from... to keep the  votes fair  within the cross  section of the membership not  individual teams...and to keep smaller teams from banding together possibly   to have their  way which isnt necessarily[/quote]

Then you wish the votes to be proportionate....i.e based on how many members are in each team...seems a little conflicting

Would it not be simpler and fairer to have a poll vote on both forums to be voted on by all members....sure it may have to have several poll votes with different questions and a simple yes/no option for each  i.e

First poll......Do you wish the Mammoth Games to be teamplay    yes/no

Second Poll...  Do you wish ALL games to be teamplay   yes/no

Team Chiefs could encourage their members to vote...and at least you will have a definative voting system whereby everybody(including those on no team) had their chance for their voice to be heard.....and surely that is what everyone wants

dos wrote:

Sharron, if the chiefs actively "lead" their teams there would be no need for disciplinary action either by support or a quorum of chiefs, nor a concern about there being a bias. If a chief doesn't care to be involved in leading & managing the team then perhaps they should appoint a chief that has the time and willingness to do so. The site isn't going to get any better when all people do is make excuses for, or are oblivious to what site rules are being violated by either themselves or their team.  Do I need to post chat logs to prove the case?  So rather than being defensive and looking at their teams through rose colored glasses let's take the initiative and be proactive when it comes to ensuring that teammates are abiding by site rules.

I am well aware of the rules and are proactive and in the latest debacle ...so was Mufusa......if you think for one minute that when it comes to discplinary matters that the TLU can stop disagreements/accusations/cheating...you are wrong ...that is up to each individual to do so...do they listen...not always...will it prevent bannings.....no it won't...do I want people banned ...no I don't...do I want to see friends judge their friends ...no I don't...and will they? without letting their emotions get in way...no they won't...in an ideal world it would be great if they could...but they can't.....I am not making excuses.....it simple there is not one chief here that can separate their emotion from fact...hence why I state that Mufusa is only one with no vested interest in doing what is right when it comes to disciplinary matters.....and therefore should not be on the TLU agenda

I am well aware of the rules and are proactive and in the latest debacle ...so was Mufusa......if you think for one minute that when it comes to discplinary matters that the TLU can stop disagreements/accusations/cheating...you are wrong ...that is up to each individual to do so...do they listen...not always...will it prevent bannings.....no it won't...do I want people banned ...no I don't...do I want to see friends judge their friends ...no I don't...and will they? without letting their emotions get in way...no they won't...in an ideal world it would be great if they could...but they can't.....I am not making excuses.....it simple there is not one chief here that can separate their emotion from fact...hence why I state that Mufusa is only one with no vested interest in doing what is right when it comes to disciplinary matters.....and therefore should not be on the TLU agenda

The problem with that is when a group of donaters get together and pressure Mufassa to ban someone or they will no longer donate and/or leave the site, like in the latest debacle.
Mufassa interest is keeping the site running so he is pretty much backed into a corner.

I don't know what is going to solve that problem be it the TLU or what but something needs to be done or this will happen again.

There are a few chiefs on FC, as Dos has stated, who "actively lead" their teams, but also those who do not. It seems that most of the drama stems from the players on the teams of the chiefs who do not. In my opinion, it is the individual chiefs who need to take a more pro-active approach to maintaining peace & harmony amongst all of the players. If this requires that the chiefs penalize their own players for repeated infractions, then that's how it should be. Look at it like a business... you have the owner (Mufasa) and he has his vice presidents (team chiefs). It is the responsibility of the VP.s (chiefs) to ensure that the employees comply with company policies and to maintain a positive working environment. If there are problems, then the VP's (chiefs) deal with it in a manner in which they see fit to correct those problems. The only time that the owner should be brought in to resolve a problem is if, and when the VP's have done their jobs and the problem still persists. There are many ways that a chief can attempt to maintain order, from a warning for a first infraction, all the way to recommending that the owner ban (fire) the individual for repeatedly ignoring the reprimands of his/her chief. We all come to FatCat for recreation... a break from the real world. Lately, it has not been a very pleasant place to be. I beseech each & every one of the Team Chiefs on this site to step up and take control of their respective teams, or step down & let someone who has the desire to stop all of this bickering take the lead.

Sharron per your example voting.

2 chiefs from each team vote

2 NO votes for Warriorz.
2 yes for Bazinga,
2 yes for Rush,
2 Yes for Evil.

Majority vote rules and passes Team play for voting game.