|
Post by Grillick on Apr 18, 2014 20:51:29 GMT
We shouldn't have to request information about what's going on in the conference. You should be actively providing it. Daily updates of minutes and discussions, and such.
|
|
|
Post by The Imp on Apr 18, 2014 22:04:57 GMT
Couldn't agree more!
|
|
end666
Foreign Diplomat
Posts: 348
|
Post by end666 on Apr 19, 2014 10:55:40 GMT
I agree to the above.At least the topics that are being discussed should be posted.
|
|
tobiash
Foreign Diplomat
Posts: 48
PT Nation Name: Concordia
|
Post by tobiash on Apr 19, 2014 18:24:25 GMT
Just a suggestion! But I think that it could be fun for all who play PT if you post topics discussed (as end666 said) and any results that you agreed on, on the PT forum.
|
|
|
Post by cornupication on Apr 19, 2014 20:14:36 GMT
Your comments are noted - I'll take them to the rest of the leaders and our representative.
Re: posting them on the PT forums - that probably won't happen. There's the possibility of an overview being sent out to the rest of the world, but the G10 is for just that - for the alliances involved.
|
|
|
Post by lostheroes on Apr 20, 2014 0:18:26 GMT
No offense, Cornupication, but isn't that really for the G10 representatives to decide?
|
|
|
Post by Grillick on Apr 20, 2014 0:44:15 GMT
I also wonder what efforts the organizers of this summit did to contact the alliance listed in the invitation who (according to its in-game description) disavows the use of out-of-game communications channels.
I suspect that you didn't even try.
|
|
|
Post by cornupication on Apr 20, 2014 8:59:19 GMT
Fair point lostheroes - I'll let Matthew know about this so he can deal with it.
Grillick - you'll have to ask Matthew - he contacted the alliances, so he'll be the best person to give you information on that.
|
|
|
Post by matthew on Apr 21, 2014 18:14:14 GMT
Currently I do not feel any obligation to reveal anything before the G10 is concluded. The Alliances that attended are free to share any and all information there, the VF simply decidez not to share until the meeting had been concluded.
|
|
|
Post by lostheroes on Apr 21, 2014 18:16:49 GMT
Considering the G10 has been extended indefinitely when will it end? And as Foxfire pointed out on the G10 page on PT, why does it need to end?
|
|
|
Post by Fox on Apr 21, 2014 21:24:18 GMT
Considering the G10 has been extended indefinitely when will it end? And as Foxfire pointed out on the G10 page on PT, why does it need to end? ^
|
|
|
Post by The Campbell Nation on Apr 22, 2014 17:57:41 GMT
Considering the G10 has been extended indefinitely when will it end? And as Foxfire pointed out on the G10 page on PT, why does it need to end? Yeah, I hate to be a pain here, but saying you won't release information until after the end of the conference, then postponing the end indefinitely seems kind of fishy to the casual observer. I understand the reasoning for both, but it comes across as rather authoritarian. Perhaps have some set delay (say, 3-5 days) after which information about negotiations is released to the public, that way present negotiations can be kept secret, and the public can have a general idea of what's going on. Having an informed public will also help negotiations by letting us give you our opinions and ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Grillick on Apr 23, 2014 14:08:15 GMT
I see this "conference" appears to be exactly what I thought it would be.
|
|
|
Post by Dabigbluewhale on Apr 23, 2014 20:28:27 GMT
I see this "conference" appears to be exactly what I thought it would be. As a casual observer of the G10, it didn't look like it was supposed to be transparent in the first place; they just promised a little transparency to calm the waters.
|
|
|
Post by federa on May 4, 2014 23:55:55 GMT
Considering the G10 has been extended indefinitely when will it end? And as Foxfire pointed out on the G10 page on PT, why does it need to end? Yeah, I hate to be a pain here, but saying you won't release information until after the end of the conference, then postponing the end indefinitely seems kind of fishy to the casual observer. I understand the reasoning for both, but it comes across as rather authoritarian. Perhaps have some set delay (say, 3-5 days) after which information about negotiations is released to the public, that way present negotiations can be kept secret, and the public can have a general idea of what's going on. Having an informed public will also help negotiations by letting us give you our opinions and ideas. Or perhaps there is something they don't want us to know.
|
|
|
Post by The Campbell Nation on May 5, 2014 1:08:02 GMT
Yeah, I hate to be a pain here, but saying you won't release information until after the end of the conference, then postponing the end indefinitely seems kind of fishy to the casual observer. I understand the reasoning for both, but it comes across as rather authoritarian. Perhaps have some set delay (say, 3-5 days) after which information about negotiations is released to the public, that way present negotiations can be kept secret, and the public can have a general idea of what's going on. Having an informed public will also help negotiations by letting us give you our opinions and ideas. Or perhaps there is something they don't want us to know. I personally can't think of anything they'd want to hide from us apart from the fact that if it were public they'd be bombarded with opinions. Unless they're like, all run by the same person or something. And there's actually no conference. Just one illuminati lizardman sitting at a computer making fake accounts on proxies. Or something.
|
|