As mentioned in the title, I propose the creation of a VF Council.
This council would be made up of ONE representative from each agreement wishing to get involved, with no obligation to participate.
A simple Discord group would be sufficient for its operation.

The aim of this council would be as follows:

1. Reinforce inter-entity cohesion: Encourage constructive exchanges rather than conflicts. In line with Aymeric's desire to improve mutual support, this council would enable direct dialogue between the entities. For example, it would offer the possibility of reporting inappropriate behaviour by a member to his or her agreement so that prompt action could be taken. This would make it possible to defuse situations before they spread to the whole of VF. In the event of inaction, the usual process via the administration would be applied.

2. Contribute to regulatory decisions: Provide a platform for discussion regarding Aymeric's decisions, thereby facilitating rapid adaptation of the regulations. Ideally, upstream collaboration with Aymeric on new implementations would be envisaged.

3. Provide an advisory perspective on major decisions : When complex decisions are taken by the directors on delicate subjects, a plurality of opinions can greatly contribute to informed decision-making. It is important to stress that the Board's role would be purely advisory and not decision-making.

It would also be useful to be able to submit structured proposals for improvement to Aymeric, to avoid subjects being launched without follow-up.

Finally, the creation of this council should help to ease tensions within VForum, by allowing debates to be managed upstream and in a more neutral manner.

Given that we are operating in a community environment where cohesion seems to be eroding, wouldn't it be a good idea to act quickly to improve the situation?

I agree with you that something needs to be done, but when you say the agreements, are you talking about all the agreements or just the d1?
I think we all have improvement projects in mind.
Already the admins when they have a problem with a member of an agreement, can contact his president, most of the time I have mp to explain the problem but when a member freaks out on the MC or vforum for example, the president can intervene by mp to his member and resolve the situation internally.
In the event of a repeat offence, the chairman could sack the member without losing any points, for example.
For the council, if all the agreements are concerned, it's a good idea to get together once a month and discuss any concerns that might help the game move forward. Aymeric could also be present at these meetings to listen to any concerns or possible improvements.

I'm talking about all the agreements that want to play the game, nothing compulsory.
Why only D1? VF is only for D1 😉

I think it will be complicated, tensions are there and unfortunately I do not think that this council will change anything.
I may be wrong

My opinion: I don't think it'll make much difference and I doubt the MDJ's commitment to his game at the moment.

That said, I'm in favour of a general refreshment area open to anyone who wants one, and basic rules of politeness. Flemme to be on a guest channel in 20 different discords.

Enjoy the game

A laudable idea that would make a lot of sense, as you say, if the mdj were present and open to this type of 'opening'.
But I'm afraid we're a long way from that. Disillusioned times.

Tomasm: Je parles de toutes les ententes qui veulent jouer le jeux, rien d'obligatoire.
Pourquoi que la D1? VF n'est réservé qu'à la D1 😉

Well, we usually denigrate others, so that's why I asked.
I'm fine with it

Yes, that's a good idea, but people need to stop obsessing over the mdj.
If you don't like the game as it is, you don't have to stay with it.

Nice initiative, but the link with the mdj seems compromised.

It might be a good idea.
Now, would everyone be able to put their grudges aside for each other's sake? I'm not sure.

Plarchios: Ce pourrait être une bonne idée.
Maintenant, est ce que tous seraient capable de mettre leurs rancoeur de côté pour le bien de chacun ? Pas sûr…

After talking to Tomasm this morning, we put things straight and I'm ready to start again on a sound footing.

His idea is a good one and would avoid all the drama we see on vfo.

In my opinion, there's no point in waiting for a response from the MoDJ and its participation. It's not his way or his desire...

We agree that waiting for information and/or validation from the MDJ makes no sense.
In this case, what I can propose in order to test this is to create a private channel on our discord where only ONE president (or ONE member) of each agreement will be able to join. The idea is to show that it's possible and that an official channel could then be created to provide a totally neutral discussion channel.

A good thing if it sees the light of day

In any case, if his aim is to sell by artificially inflating the number of registrations, he is unlikely to be interested in this initiative.

I'm all for it.
It seems to me that I have already proposed it, and seen it proposed by others a few (many?) years ago...

It's certainly well-intentioned, but this kind of council and other bullshit disputes won't change a thing.
We need to change people, not create a kind of senate that serves no purpose on a tube that has never solved a single problem on the planet.

Lebaygue: Ca part certainement d une bonne intention mais ce genre de conseil et autres discords a la con,ça ne changera rien.
Ce sont les gens qu il faut changer pas créer une sorte de sénat qui ne sert a rien sur un tube qui n a jamais résolu un seul souci sur la planète.

That's just it, only discussions can change people. Today there is no discussion, only attacks. Nothing moves forward. But this would make it possible to have a simple discussion.
And at the same time, be able to react very quickly to derivatives without it turning into a drama.

There's no harm in intra-agreement discussions. Anyone who wants to can take part, and there's nothing compulsory about it. I like the idea, if it means we can talk more freely, iron out certain things, talk openly about others or just have a bit of a laugh. 👍

Tomasm: Justement, seule les discussions peuvent faire changer les gens. Aujourd'hui il n'y a pas de discussion, que des attaques. Rien n'avance. Alors que la ça permettrai de pouvoir discuter simplement.
Et par la même occasion, pouvoir réagir tres vite sur des dérivés sans que ça parte en drama.

Your idea is laudable, but it remains utopian, not as an idea but in the result required.
When people are so capable of keeping tabs on each other, of being so deleterious to a title on a game that the whole world doesn't even know exists, I don't see how a council of elders will do anything.
On a trivial game, when some people are capable of doing 50 accounts for themselves, how will the council help?
And when the council is called into question, because at the end of the day in this kind of assembly, there will be a representative of the 8 best agreements, but the second-rate agreements that play peacefully won't find any guys who want to get bored with this kind of thing.
So, it will only be those who have their heads in the sand (basically, those from the agreements that are causing problems and that I described above) who will give their opinion in order to shape the game to their vision.

So it's pointless... You can't solve a problem with those who cause it.

Lebaygue: Ton idée est louable mais ça reste utopique,non pas comme idée mais dans le résultat requis.
Quand les gens sont autant capables de se surveiller,d être autant délétères pour un titre sur un jeu dont le monde entier en ignore même l existence,je ne vois pas en quoi un conseil des sages arrangera quoique ce soit.
Sur un jeu anodin,quand certains sont capables de se faire 50 comptes,en quoi le conseil servira a quelque chose ?
Et quand le conseil sera mis en cause,parce qu au final dans ce genr...

I completely understand your point of view. I think that the word advice is very poorly chosen and doesn't really represent my idea.
The aim is above all to create a bond. To be able to tease each other nicely of course. For example, during an IE match where you come and tease the opposing team.
And whether you're playing for the title or just for fun, you can take part and get some enjoyment out of it.
But if only the top 8 VF teams take part, it'll only be half a success.
Only halfway, because as you say, tensions often arise from these agreements, but if these agreements manage to talk to each other, we'll have gone part of the way!

Tomasm: Je comprend tout à fait ton point de vue. Je pense que le mot conseil est trés mal choisie et ne représente pas vraiment mon idée.
Le but est surtout de créer du lien. Pouvoir aussi se taquiner gentillement bien sur. Par exemple lors d'un match IE ou tu viens charier l'entente adverse.
Et ça, peut importe si tu joue le titre ou le maintiens ou juste pour le plaisir, tu peux y participer et y trouver une certaine forme de plaisir.
Mais en effet, si seulement les 8 premières entente de VF y pa...

I agree with your last paragraph, but there's nothing to stop you talking amongst yourselves to ease tensions without creating something obscure that will only concern the 'big boys' in the end.

Good evening Tomasm, I won't put any likes on your proposal (which wouldn't change anything anyway ^^) but we've exchanged our views.

a une époque ca existait mais le soucis c'est qu'entre ceux du comite aucune décision sur des choix possibles étaient faite car ils étaient toujours en désaccord donc ce fus supprimer, après pourquoi pas mais si c'est pour que ca tourne en rond car tout le monde sera en désaccord cela sertira rien a part à déplacer les drama

At worst, taking on a few chairmen from all the divisions if some of them don't get on is not worth it, it's to save the game this committee. After that, we can disagree but ruining 5 topics for the same story doesn't make you want to talk to them, that's for sure.
I like everyone, I talk to everyone, those who don't like me, that's not my problem, I move on without them, those who criticise me, ditto, I move on for my agreement and so that the game stays alive.

That volunteers put themselves forward as candidates, and that a vote be taken by the community to decide which managers they feel are best suited to fulfil this mission?

if a council is formed and validated by the mdj;
I propose that any request concerning the game that comes out of the council be validated by a majority of the council.
by an unfair and non-modifiable vote
the result will be put in the new section and the mdj's decision (if there is one) will also be put in the new section.

so that there are no disputes;
WARNING: this is only a suggestion :)

Nice national assembly, let's hope it's more prolific than the real thing!
Kisses

michbou: si un conseil ce fait et qu'il est validé par lemdj;
je propose que toute demande concerant le jeu , qui sera issu du conseil soit validé par une majorité du conseil .
par un vote anoyme et non modifiable
le resultat sera mis dans la partie new et la decision du mdj ( si il y a )sera egalement mis en partie new

pour qu'il y est pas de contestations ;
ATTENTION: ce n'est qu'une suggestion :)

Anonymous or not, I personally have nothing to hide about my decisions 😊😊😊

Quick question: will we be able to live in opulence with Vfien funds? 😂

If so, that would be a great idea.

But a sort of "Global Council" on a voluntary basis, with one member chosen by agreement? When I did entente, ( entente 1,2,3 included, only one member representing all 3).

It's important that it's not open to everyone, otherwise it'll slow down the discord agreements, which isn't the aim.
I'm not a fan of this concept, but OK.

It costs nothing to test.

Plarchios: Petite question, y aura pourrons nous vivre dans l’opulence avec les fonds des Vfien ? 😂

Dans ce cas, ce serait une super idée.

Mais une sorte de «  Conseil global » sur la base du volontariat, avec un membre choisi par entente ? Quand je fis entente, ( entente 1,2,3 compris, un seul membre représentant les 3).

1 member per agreement (including sister agreements)
The aim is not to replace the agreements' discord.
Rather, to have a discord where we can talk between agreements, tease each other nicely, etc.
Those present on the discord are free to relay information or other on their own discord.

Tomasm: 1 membre par entente ( ententes sœurs comprises )
Le but n'est pas de remplacer le discord des ententes.
Plutôt d'avoir un discord ou l'ont peut parler entre ententes, se chambrer gentillement etc.
Libres aux personnes présentes sur le discord de relayer les infos ou autre sur leurs propres discord.

Inevitably if you go on a discord to chamber you, spoken ect you will penalize the discord agreement.
Knowing that you'll be with people you rarely meet so you'll have more to talk about.
For me the purpose of this discord is to settle the tension between agreements and basta.
In my personal case, I can't see myself talking to people who spend 90% of their time spitting on my agreement or who gloated when we were deleted.
On the other hand, trying to reduce tensions for the good of the game, yes I'd be happy to do that, but that's as far as it goes.

minadinho: Forcément si tu va sur un discord pour te chambré , parlé ect tu va pénalisé les discord entente.
Sachant que tu seras avec des gens que tu côtoie rarement donc tu auras plus de quoi parlé .
Pour moi le but de se discord est de réglé le soucis de tension entre ententes et basta .
Pour mon cas personnel je me voit pas discuter avec des gens qui passe 90% de leur temps à craché sur mon entente ou qui ont jubilé lors de notre suppression .
Par contre essayer de réduire les tensions pour le bie...

The aim is to wipe the slate clean and start afresh on a healthier footing, where communication and respect take precedence over conflict and confrontation.

RadioRainbow: Le but étant de faire table rase du passé et de repartir sur des bases un peu plus saines, où la communication et le respect priment sur le conflit et l'affrontement.

I think it's pointless to make people forget the past.
If a person holds a grudge, that's the way it's going to stay.
Anticipate conflicts for example and be able to manage them there.
To avoid the bad atmosphere and tensions in the vf forum.
Because the image brought to the vf forum and the one that represents the game.
That's a yes, but beyond that it's a no for me.

A great idea! At last, a debate that elevates the debate.

On the other hand, and we have to tell a truth that no-one perhaps dares to admit, 90% of the tensions and sanctions come from the big agreements or between members of these big agreements.
I would have been more in favour of not involving these agreements in the first place and experimenting with them to resolve their conflict without integrating them directly (this is where I agree with Lebaygue), so that they can at least become aware of it. Integrating them directly would be like shooting yourself in the foot to see such an initiative fail.

In my opinion, if this Council (or another name) is likely to make concrete proposals to the mdj and that these are taken into account, and that at the same time, its role of mediation is to be commended, then these agreements will make the best choices to be integrated at a second stage.

But frankly forget the idea that the mdj will come to give his opinion there.
(I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, but I'm sure it's a good idea if it's not a good idea.)
It's not done on the vf forum, apparently internally too, so could it be done there?
I agree that some worries come from the big agreements, so all the more reason to include them to make them responsible and present them with a fait accompli when worries arise.
After all, the bad atmosphere doesn't just come from the big cartels.
Live bullet shooters exist everywhere.
As you mentioned lebaygue I'll give you an example, at one time he was well placed in the standings.
He didn't hide his words if he had something to say (not a reproach, on the contrary, I like that) even if it meant that the subject would get out of hand.
He's not one of the teams playing for the title, but he's far from being the only one.
Let's concentrate on the improved things we can change, the rest is a waste of time.

losgardos: Chouette une assemblée nationale , espérons plus prolifique qu'en vrai !
Bisous

"I would have preferred a politburo! "
image](https://i.imgur.com/qWjBogP.jpeg)

Nothing more needs to be created

OncleOink: " J'aurai préféré un politburo ! "

Despite his cleverly masked eyes, you'll recognise the verve of good old Brassens. The moustache doesn't lie!

The idea is good in itself but we mustn't forget that there are clubs without agreements so we must also think about them and in addition one member per agreement due to the numbers it would still be very complicated to manage and could sometimes degenerate 😂.
I would propose that we could have one member per agreement for each Division, then each Division will vote two or three members who will represent them at the level of all the Divisions so a Division has at least 16 representatives at the level of their Division and they will send just 2 or 3 to represent them at the level of all the Divisions which will make a committee of at least 10 to 15 people at the level of the 5 Divisions then the questions can be managed at the level of each Division they decide internally what their representatives must go to present at the level of the committee of the 5 Divisions on a question or an unspecified subject.
That's kind of my proposal so I don't know if we can analyse it to understand it better but it's just a small system to avoid having a big committee that could push the problem even further because everyone is part of the committee and would like to be heard so it will be a bit difficult to make decisions.
Then the 10 representatives can also choose a representative by vote who will just be able to communicate what they've decided or proposed because when you're at the head of such and such a committee your role is just to debate, calm the climate and communicate what you've agreed and not what you've decided.

From what I hear in the earpiece, the idea has been adopted.
Putting it in the community section would have been more appropriate, as it didn't need the approval or implementation of the MDJ to happen.

If it can bring a bit of calm to Vfo, it's obviously a good idea.
Talk to each other, sort out your differences, set guidelines to be respected.
I'd like to thank in advance all those who have volunteered to do this and who will do so in the right spirit.

Hello hello

Can we do jiras?