Proposal: Tbert's Law.

The place that new game ideas and options are debated

Moderator: korexus

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Proposal: Tbert's Law.

Post by korexus » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:37 am

I propose we formalise the system of decision making from
Everyone arguing for a couple of weeks and Chris trying to follow the majority view if a) he can work it out and b) he remembers.
to
Every time there's a proposal for anything, the person goes to the WOK Council forum, and makes a thread entitled "Proposal #XX : Blah Blah." That topic is then discussed, with special effort to keeping the thread on-topic, until the discussion peters down. Discussion could be a minimum of a week with a maximum of 2 weeks or a month. An X-Game could be run, with the proposal implemented, if it is deemed necessary by the people in the thread. After that, another thread is created entitled "Vote for Proposal #XX." The vote has to be a clear concise proposal, not several options. A week is given for votes, and then the proposal either passes or fails by a 2/3 majority. If the proposal does not pass, it can still be discussed, but cannot be voted on again for 3 months.

This will maintain the current 1 person one vote system, while ensuring everyone is heard and protecting against change for the worse due to Malicious Users. (tm)

I know we've already had a lot of discussion on this, but if anyone has any more thoughts to add, it would be useful for you to put them here. Then in a little while I'll open up a vote.


Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:44 am

Of course i fully agree with this as it's the exactly same option as option 1 (that nobody voted for). :roll:
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:02 am

So you won't moan about having to run an X-game before making changes to defaults and such?
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
Calidus
Commander
Commander
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Clan Head, CoN
Contact:

Post by Calidus » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:49 pm

I like some of the proposed idea, but the voting is not acceptable. Did I have the wrong impression that we had come to the conclussion that the WSC was to be made up of 2 Clan Reps, the Dev team, and two Mercenaries. If this is the case, then why is there another proposal to revert to a system that noone voted for in the first place?

I do like the idea of allowing discussion for no less than one, and no more than two weeks before it is properly worded and put to a vote. That should be plenty of time to allow for everyone to voice their opinions on a specific subject.

So, as Tbert's rule is currently proposed, I vote NO.

Calidus
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:53 pm

Reread the Vote#23 thread. How many people wanted what is a matter of interpretation.
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
Calidus
Commander
Commander
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Clan Head, CoN
Contact:

Post by Calidus » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:13 pm

I do not have time to waste on rereading a month long thread. And I still vote NO to the proposed legislation.
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:19 pm

This is the discussion phase, Cali -- not voting yet. Can you explain how it can be reworded in order for you to accept it?

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:50 pm

trewqh wrote:So you won't moan about having to run an X-game before making changes to defaults and such?
The proposal says: "An X-Game could be run, with the proposal implemented, if it is deemed necessary by the people in the thread"

So it's not compulsary. Plus i think testing things first is the best way, as long as the final decision is not just made by a select few, that has been my (only) problem from the start.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

User avatar
Mullog
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Aalesund, Norway (freezing!). Member of the Vulkings

Post by Mullog » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:28 pm

I think this is a good idea. I suggest we limit the discussions to two weeks, that should be enough. If the topic is a game change AND it seems possible that there is a majority vote for the proposal, then we should run an x-game to see how it works. There is no reason to run an x-game for a change that nobody but the proposer (is that a word?) likes.
After the x-game has finished it would be time for the vote. I think would work well. And it would be way better than reinstating the not-working wsc.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
- Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:31 pm

Saladin wrote:The proposal says: "An X-Game could be run, with the proposal implemented, if it is deemed necessary by the people in the thread"

So it's not compulsary.
Well, of course it isn't! Trying to run an X-game if someone proposes a change to the clan system would be plain silly. And you did moan when it was suggested that we should have an X-game before implementing in-game rule changes.
Saladin wrote:Plus i think testing things first is the best way, as long as the final decision is not just made by a select few, that has been my (only) problem from the start.
Then you must have misread what korexus repeated a couple of times. He said: 'Run an X-game and see how the community reacts before changing rules'. You oppsed to that.

And you imagined 'the select few'. Just because Chris (the only person who can actually do somethings, who can implement changes) regarded the arguments of some people as more reasonable than your arguments doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
TBert
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by TBert » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:49 pm

Here are the major strong points in this proposal.

Everyone can participate. Nobody feels left out, nobody's threatening to leave WOK, and everybody can educate themselves during the discussions. True democracy.

The discussion's length and focus will be regulated. This is absolutely vital, especially in a true democracy, to actually get things done. This part is open for ideas, there are a few things we could do. We could set up a default discussion length, and extend it if the discussion is still going strong. We could have the discussion thread ended 3 days after the last post. We could lock the discussion thread while voting is being made, to avoid people changing their votes. The forum moderators will be acting as a 'chairman' of sorts, but their power only extends to regulating the length of the actual discussion, regulating the length of the voting, and making sure the thread stays on topic. If discussion gets too long, the first discussion thread could be archived and a second begun, especially if discussion continues after a clear proposal is made and voted on.

Voting will be clear. I applaud Saladin for getting things moving, but votes should as often as possible be a simple yes or no question. I think the person who originally came up with the proposal should be the one to read all the discussion and edit their proposal as they see fit for voting, or they could cede that right to someone else, or one of the forum moderators could do it if the original proponent is missing. We should encourage people to simply edit their posts in the voting thread instead of adding another, to keep things simple. Voting should end after a week or two weeks, depending on if we want some of the casual old-timers to show up and vote. After voting is complete, whatever the outcome, discussion can continue, but the proposal cannot be revised and/or voted for again for 3 months. If discussion gets too long, the first discussion thread could be archived and a second begun.

There's veto power for protection from the large group of hostile newbs. By a near-unanimous vote of devs and vets, say 90%, any proposal can be closed. Devs are easy to spot, but vets should have been playing for at least a year, or played in 5 games, or some kind of criteria like that.

Last, but not least... it's easy. We'll be doing all the same things we've already been doing, but there will be rules in place to make sure a concise proposal is written up from our discussion, and that it will be discussed and voted on in a timely manner. The timely manner is important because, as Calidus said, people don't want to re-read a months-long thread just to figure out how to vote, and after a while everyone but a few die-hards lose interest in discussion threads.
pro libertate eos occubuisse - "they died for liberty"

Clan Head - Valn Ohtar

SGT - US Army

23-year-old father of 3 - really needs a beer

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:50 pm

Get of your high horse Trewqh. I actually count myself to the 'select few' as i do tend to get my point across and do feel i get taken seriously.

If you've actually read what i post instead of having such preconceptions that everybody only has egocentric reasons to do thing, than you would find that in all this i'm trying to make sure that EVERYBODY gets a vote and not just the big mouths like me and you.

Oh and if you even think about voting in favour of this proposal after all the poop you put up on not wanting to chance anything and how you were so much against this option than i'm taking the first plane to Poland to come and beat you with a very large stick. :twisted:
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:26 pm

Saladin wrote:i'm trying to make sure that EVERYBODY gets a vote and not just the big mouths like me and you.
Honestly, since you started reviving the WSC (which has always been a group of a select few) after an argument where everybody could discuss a proposal, but hardly anyone (noone?) agreed with you, I thought that meant you're just trying to get your way. And the way you organised the vote without including option 4 only ensured me that was the case. If that wasn't the case then you certainly didn't act like it (looking from my perspective).
Saladin wrote:Oh and if you even think about voting in favour of this proposal
I won't. This proposal looks nice and shiny, but I still don't think we need a voting system at this point. Especially one that gives everyone equal rights. For a community such as WoK a 'true democracy' is not a better solution than a meritocracy of the dedicated 'big mouths like me and you'.
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
Calidus
Commander
Commander
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Clan Head, CoN
Contact:

Post by Calidus » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:37 pm

A true democracy is going to bite us in the ass. (and you can quote me on that)

The problem I have with the proposal is that "Everyone gets a vote" may appear to work fine now, but what happens in 6 months if/when WOK takes off again? All hell breaks loose, just like the last time. Too many chiefs and not enough indians and all that crap.

Whatever is proposed, it needs to be something that can be effective for the long term and not just a band-aid to appease the masses. Regardless of what method you chose, SOMEONE will get mad because they will feel that their views are not properly heard. I believe that everyone should have an opportunity to be involved in the discussions, but the final vote needs to fall to the WSC. When the WSC was first formed, the membership was very small. Things moved along quickly and smoothly. Once it began to try to make everyone happy and give everyone a voice, it became cumbersome to get even the simplest ideas discussed without someone getting bent out of shape. Do what you will. You cannot please everyone.

I apologize for sounding like I don't want to play well with others, but it seems to me we keep beating a dead horse.

Calidus
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:53 pm

Calidus wrote:but it seems to me we keep beating a dead horse.
So, how else do you properly tenderize the meat? ;) As they said on an episode of one of my all-time favorite TV series ... "If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak!" :D

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
TBert
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by TBert » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:34 pm

That's easy, if the community gets big again, we can vote to re-create the WSC, using the rules we're discussing right now. One of the main arguments we've got against a WSC right now IS the small size of the community, so we need to create something that works with a small community. If and when the community gets big, we've already got rules in place to re-create a WSC. You saw how hard it was to make one right now, with 20 people playing... how much harder will it be to come up with a consensus with 40 or 50?
pro libertate eos occubuisse - "they died for liberty"

Clan Head - Valn Ohtar

SGT - US Army

23-year-old father of 3 - really needs a beer

User avatar
TBert
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by TBert » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:58 am

It's been 4 days since this thread was last active. I'm going to revise the proposal a bit and put it up for a vote in 3 more days, unless the discussion continues.
pro libertate eos occubuisse - "they died for liberty"

Clan Head - Valn Ohtar

SGT - US Army

23-year-old father of 3 - really needs a beer

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:27 am

OK, but I'm not clear what the proposal is likely to be. So I suggest a delay between putting it up and the start of voting, as others have said, so that we can argue for and against before people start voting.

Han
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:56 pm

Yeah, is it going to be Tbert's proposal against no changes, or is Tbert's proposal going to be the 5th option.

Or maybe we should start with a general bring WSC back against not yet vote so that all supporters of bringing WSC back can consolidate their votes (won't help my cause but I think it's fair) and then, in case the majority wants to bring it back, have a vote on what the revived WSC should look like, so that EVERYBODY can have a say in that one.
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
TBert
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by TBert » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:09 pm

It will be my proposal, exactly as above, except with the 'moderator' position added. The moderator powers only extend to regulating the length of the discussion and the length of the voting. I'll volunteer to do it, even. The voting will be a yes or no question, just as I laid out, something like "Do you want to implement the following proposal?"
pro libertate eos occubuisse - "they died for liberty"

Clan Head - Valn Ohtar

SGT - US Army

23-year-old father of 3 - really needs a beer

Locked