Tbert's law - requesting some clarification. :)

[Saladin]

I know the official discussion has closed, but i was hoping Tbert could clarify or straighten some things out for me so i can vote yes for this proposal as well.

An X-Game could be run, with the proposal implemented, if it is deemed necessary by the people in the thread.

How is this decided wether or not it is necessary? I think it would be good to have some rules for this.

A week is given for votes, with the possibility of extension to two weeks if votes are still trickling in after a week.

I don't think it is a good idea to have the option of changing the period in which can be voted during the actual vote. That could lead to a vote being extend or not extend depending on if the results is what is expected by the moderator. It is better to have the moderator set a time frame (how long is up to his discretion) and when it ends, it ends, no extensions.

The main regulators of the discussion will be the forum moderators and the original creator of the proposal (myself, in this case). They have the power to stop the discussion and start the vote, dependent on how active the discussion is. They also have the power to lock the discussion thread while voting is going on to avoid people trying to change the proposal after the vote starts. The final power they have is regulating the length of the voting, which, like discussion, depends on how active the voting thread is.

This is the main part why i voted no. Too many people who can decide on what should happen with the discussion and when, how and on what should be voted. This should be one person and one person only, the moderator. If the moderator is not available the back up moderator (also elected) can step in. Otherwise we will still have tons of threads with votes start constantly popping up with nobody really regulating them.

[korexus]

I'd like to add two points here myself.

Firstly, the proposal reads "the votes passes or fails by a 2/3 majority" which, taken literally, means that if 1/3 of the people vote for something it passes. The wording needs re-jigging to make it clearer.

Secondly, there's no way I can make proponents into moderators for their own thread, sorry. You can ask a moderator to step in, but you won't be able to go editing and deleting other people's threads just because it started off as your idea. (This is not me voicing my opinion on how the system should be set up. It is me telling you the limitations of our forums.)


Chris.

[TBert]

Aww, thanks for coming up with all this after I put up the voting thread

I don't mean the proponent of the idea will have actual moderating powers on the thread, it'll be just like I did, where I asked for the thread to be locked since the discussion had been dead for over a week.

I thought the 2/3 majority was pretty clear, if 2/3 of the votes are 'yes' then the proposal will pass.

As far as the X-Game thing, if the proposal has nothing to do with actual WOK mechanics, there wouldn't be an X-Game. I didn't want to make a requirement for an X-Game because we'd quickly have too many proposals that need X-Games, not enough GM's to run them, and not enough players to play them. I think if during the discussion a GM volunteers to run an X-Game, and eight or more players sign up for it, then an X-Game could be run. I left it vague on purpose. However, if an X-Game DOES take off, then voting would be delayed until the result of the change could be properly evaluated.

It seems you guys are against flexibility. If exact rules for everything are needed, we could do that, but they're exploitable, which is why I give the power to the mods. Discussion threads could be locked and votes started one week since the last post in the discussion thread, but what's to stop somebody 'filibustering' a proposal, posting every 6 days, so it never gets voted on. Voting threads could be limited to just a week, but what if we're voting on something really important and we want to email inactive vets and devs and pull in as many votes as we can.