Voting : TBert's Law

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:09 pm

We are voting on the below proposal.

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

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.

There is also a 'Veto' clause. Due to the one person one vote this proposal brings, there is potential to abuse the system. The response to this is that any proposal can be immediately closed if 80% of all active 'Advanced' players, as well as the active developers, vote against the proposal.

Voting is now open. To vote simply reply and say yes if you want the proposal to be implemented, no if you do not.

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:10 pm

I vote yes.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:13 pm

TheDragon · Post by **TheDragon** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:15 pm

Dragonette · Post by **Dragonette** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:17 pm

i say yes

dragonette

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:17 pm

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:19 pm

Well with the proposal as listed above i would have to say no. I agree with the general idea, but there are some details i disagree with that i would like to see different or at least clarified.

So as it stands it's a no.

UPDATE:

Looking at the crowd i've seen to haven in with by voting no, i'm changing my vote to yes.

So YES.

Tinker · Post by **Tinker** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:32 pm

I'm too new to have a valid opinion on this; I abstain.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:25 pm

Post by **Hryllantre** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:08 pm

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:58 pm

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:03 pm

A week has passed since this vote began. The result is 5 yes, 4 no. While I am a bit disappointed at the lack of discussion from the people who voted no, and the general lack of votes overall, the majority still stands, and the system should be implemented. I understand that this isn't a 2/3 majority, but as we're voting to implement a 2/3 majority rule, I don't think it's necessary.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:44 pm

dangnabbit...i should have sold my vote to the highest bidder, than i'd be rich now!

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:13 pm

TBert wrote:A week has passed since this vote began. The result is 5 yes, 4 no. While I am a bit disappointed at the lack of discussion from the people who voted no, and the general lack of votes overall, the majority still stands, and the system should be implemented. I understand that this isn't a 2/3 majority, but as we're voting to implement a 2/3 majority rule, I don't think it's necessary.

Actually, your numbers are backwards. There are 5 no votes and 4 yes votes, so the system should NOT be implemented.

We've already discussed this to death. Why do we need to discuss it further? Besides, this is the vote thread, not the discussion thread. Those that voted no do not like some/all of the wording for the proposal.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:04 pm

Actually, and I hate to be the one to correct you, Saladin changed his mind from No to Yes, making it 5 Yes and 4 No. Motion Passed.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:34 pm

Well not really changed my mind...i put a no vote in until i had some things clarified after that i full heartedly voted yes.

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:19 pm

Calidus wrote:We've already discussed this to death. Why do we need to discuss it further? Besides, this is the vote thread, not the discussion thread. Those that voted no do not like some/all of the wording for the proposal.

Calidus, you seem to be on a vendetta to get everyone irritated with you these days. If you just don't like something, but provide no constructive criticism to make it more acceptable to you, you don't have a right to complain when it's implemented.

When I spoke of discussion, I wasn't talking about in this thread. I also wasn't talking about the 20-page discussion that you didn't read. I was talking about the discussion thread posted in the discussion forum.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:05 pm

TBert wrote: Calidus, you seem to be on a vendetta to get everyone irritated with you these days. If you just don't like something, but provide no constructive criticism to make it more acceptable to you, you don't have a right to complain when it's implemented..

I have continually provided constructive criticism, only to be shouted down. Last time I checked this is a public forum and I can post whatever I feel like posting. If you don't want to see what I have to post, don't read it. Since Dameon isn't here to play devil's advocate, someone needs to do it, or, as it seems, the community will just up and follow the crowd like a flock of sheep.

Fillting lyric:
[center]And if I offended you, oh I'm sorry
But maybe you need to be offended [/center]

TBert wrote:
When I spoke of discussion, I wasn't talking about in this thread. I also wasn't talking about the 20-page discussion that you didn't read. I was talking about the discussion thread posted in the discussion forum.

Sorry, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have read every word that was written, and too bad for you, I do not fall in line with pandering to the idea that everyone should be rewarded for what amounts to nothing.

Besides, 5 people is not exactly a "majority" of this community, and I find it appalling that you can even say that the rule passes with only 9 people total voting. You don't even have enough people voting to fill a single game, and yet you say this is the Majority. I guess you must be using the Electoral College to get the vote passed.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:33 pm

I suspect that TBert feels that 5 of the 9 who cared enough to vote constitutes a majority. Other than those 9 perhaps the others just want to play the game and dont give a fig one way or the other.

If you believe that others would/should have objected you could have rallied them, as indeed could TB but rather than get out the whips it was left to choice as it should be and only 9 chose to participate.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:37 pm

To be honest Cal, that would mean that nothing could ever be decided on because in any election or vote be it here or in real life a large part will not vote.

Maybe we could increase the number of votes if we added all active players to the old wok mailinglist and send out a reminder whenever there is a vote.