Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Jun 5, 2015 19:24:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 7, 2015 2:41:02 GMT
Uhhh... where is my suggestion in this poll? ;_;
and what about the third suggestion from the thread too?
|
|
Vi-Poi
Administrator
Premier of Earth
PL: 434,410
Soul(x40P), Overdrive(x43)
Zeni: 1,247
Tag: @vipoi
Posts: 2,833
|
Post by Vi-Poi on Jun 7, 2015 3:59:42 GMT
Your suggestion would fall under the no vote Bao, because it was against restructuring the democracy, with the idea to create a plan at a later date that could streamline implementation. The discussions were on restructuring the democracy, not on creating new implementation plans (no actionable plans were even discussed) so diluting the voting pool with options that were not the subject of a discussion (having the discussion is important to allow for differing points of view to be examined) would be contrary to how we've ran polls in the past.
Your opinion is still represented in this poll, it's the no vote.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 7, 2015 4:59:15 GMT
Not the subject of the discussion? Ouch. Remember Vi, the point of discussions before polls is not just to allow for differing views to be examined, but for them to be included as options in the poll, this was the case presented back when that rule change passed vote. Otherwise we'd have it like we use to, where the poll and discussion would run in tandem, which resulted in options being excluded from the poll that the poll creator didn't want and the validity of these polls to fall apart.
Grouping the other two options under 'no' is gerrymandering. :X
The stated issue is slow implementation, that the operation is running inefficiently and that changes need to be made to address this. I completely agreed with that assessment but offered an alternate solution. Hyozas proposal is even specifically headed under a second section he's called 'the solution'. The proposals raised where:
- Remove members from voting from the current system, reducing involvement to staff only so that matters have less involvement. - Resolve the four key disfunctions from the current system, meaning implementation issues will disolve without restricting input. - Institute a republic, where staff are specifically voted by members to represent them on a given topic.
Also just on a personal note... how can you say no actionable plans were introduced when my entire posts were dedicated to the steps we need to take and elaboration on how we will achieve them. (Additionally, If there have been other polls in the past which excluded peoples options then we have a big problem, can you please show me which ones?)
|
|
Vi-Poi
Administrator
Premier of Earth
PL: 434,410
Soul(x40P), Overdrive(x43)
Zeni: 1,247
Tag: @vipoi
Posts: 2,833
|
Post by Vi-Poi on Jun 7, 2015 6:03:50 GMT
Instituting a republic would be a vote for restructuring the democracy, it would not be a no vote. Koramund was in agreement with the restructuring when he gave his opinion, and any altering of the current structure of the democracy to transform it into a republic (which might interfere with current staff appointing rules set by admins) would inherently be a restructuring. Further, within all the current opinion points of the restructuring, a common thread is that all staff will still be held accountable by the playerbase.
We've always formed polls after discussion has been made on the specific items that will go into the polls. There's been no discussion on specific alternatives to a restructuring of the democracy, that's why there is currently a yes or a no.
For instance, your proposal is "resolve the four key dysfunctions from our current system, meaning implementation issues will dissolve without restricting input." These four key dysfunctions, I'm guessing, are Backbone, Knowledge, Mistakes, and Consistency. All of those items save for Knowledge are subjective, and there is no governing structure for implementing fixes to people's backbone or absolving everyone from the capacity to make mistakes or be inconsistent. What is the mechanism that can be described for resolving these supposed key dysfunctions? It's not a plan that can be acted upon, it simply says to resolve them, and from your points in the thread discussion I would guess in ways that people have been expected to operate in the past under the current system.
Your view of democratic status quo is still represented in the no vote. Your argument trended that the democratic system was working, but the operators of the system were not working. If we added your "resolve the four key dysfunctions", along with a general no, that would be creating bias in the poll by populating it with two options from one opinion just like if we added Koramund's specific plan, along with a general yes, that would be creating bias in the poll by populating it with two options from one opinion.
This way, everyone knows what they're voting for. It's a simple yes or no to change or not.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 9, 2015 8:06:27 GMT
Still pending, What's up Boli my good man? ------- That's called gerrmandering Vi-poi, it is a political practice of grouping datasets in such a way to bias the results through misrepresentation grouping. Eg: ----- "proper discussions must precede poll creation, to develop the poll options based on community input rather than just one person, This was implemented to prevent issues observed in the past(polls not properly presenting options or denying community input into what actually gets represented) and properly consider the matter at hand fairly and equally."*(Emphasis mine)Your words also prove you have not even read my proposal, each one h Unfortunately Vi I'm not motivated to debate with you today, and I don't wish to shame you(it's the whole reason I posted as a member instead of intervening as an administrator) I just want fair representation - all members are entitled to have their input represented to their satisfaction, so I am making a request as a member. A four option poll has no reason to be split into two two-option polls, this would only result in a gerrymandered outcome - I'm certain Zucceta is not trying to do such a thing and this was a simple mistake, can we get a fix? Originally wasn't going to specify, but - I am requesting a four option poll based on the options presented in the thread: > Resolve the existing issues (four keys) to speed up implementation > Restrict input on changes to staff only to speed up implementation > Elect specific representatives for given issues to speed up implementation > No change, implementation is at an acceptable pace. Is this considered an unfair request?
|
|
|
Post by Zuni on Jun 9, 2015 8:13:29 GMT
Given that none of those options accurately represents what Hyoza is actually proposing - and what currently has 92.86% of the vote behind it - yes, I think that is an unfair request.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 10, 2015 8:05:39 GMT
Hmmm, unexpected. What makes you say that Zuni? I am genuinely confused - Hyoza's proposal is that we restrict input on rule changes so that, instead of requiring community involvement/consent to differ from established rulings, staff-only are a second restricted group who can change rules and mechanics to something different on their own. Internally means input on changes is restricted to staff only to speed up implementation, instead of the current process where staff are merely enforces, who make suggestions for rule or content changes as members (their title as a grader having no bearing on this, for they are equals in the existing system). Meaning members can still suggest new things separately/posthumously, but are restricted from input into the original staff discussions, and restricted from any following staff discussions which would see this modified, meaning ultimate control of the rules and mechanics of a suggestion is restricted to staff only. So, to try and word this concisely within the char limits I expressed it as: 'Restrict input on changes to staff only to speed up implementation' I don't believe this to be an inaccurate or biased way of noting it, though I see you disagree. Either way, the question was if having a four option poll for the four options presented was an unreasonable request, so if you don't believe the example I gave covers one of the options properly then I completely encourage you to post an alternative of your own as a solution to that
|
|
|
Post by Zuni on Jun 10, 2015 8:11:26 GMT
'> Restrict input on changes to staff only to speed up implementation'
This implies that players do not get any input on changes (duh).
We would. We can still raise polls, we can still demand that changes be undone if they are unpopular, we can still do everything we can do now - we just let staff act first rather than after going through a long drawn-out process.
I would go into greater detail over why I feel adding more options is unnecessary, but I'm at work so my time is somewhat limited. I think the 'in a nutshell' explanation is 'you are the only person arguing in favour of any other proposed system. Bow out gracefully, please.'
|
|
|
Post by Kaula on Jun 10, 2015 10:17:07 GMT
To add onto Zuni, this is still a democracy right now.
There's a majority wanting this; not everything's going to stop just because one person, who's apparently no greater then the rest of the staff, has some slight issues with it.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 10, 2015 11:20:37 GMT
'> Restrict input on new changes to staff only to speed up implementation' ? ---- If you are correct then the new poll will represent this Zuni, and I'll finally cast my own vote and we'll see specifically what option the community wants. You're acting as though my request for a new poll is generating extra work - as vipoi outlined, currently each option is intended to represent two entirely separate proposals each. Which means we still need another poll. I don't believe for a second I'm being unreasonable in asking that this poll be structured as per the polling rules by including the four proposals raised in the discussion thread which preceded it. Why am I being painted as the unreasonable one here? Ignoring the fact this current poll is directly breaking rules, fixing it is literally win-win, everyone gets to vote for the specific proposal they want to back. Even if this poll only included my own proposal and not hyozas I would be making the exact same comments. (Zucetta, can you please repair the poll? If not I can but I have that staff section stuff I'd rather be working on, I think this has been drawn out long enough and these comments are only serving to waste time)
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 10, 2015 11:30:07 GMT
@kaula: This 'slight issue' relates to the very legitimacy of this poll, similar to this past incident. The rules are very clear, and your comments indicate a concerning lack of understanding of the very processes you're meant to be helping to enforce.
|
|
|
Post by Zuni on Jun 10, 2015 11:31:49 GMT
You're being portrayed as unreasonable because you jumped into the thread heavily implying that it was being weighted against you when, in fact, all the discussion around the topic already had it pretty much as a foregone conclusion that it was going to go one way. This WILL generate extra work because it'll set the vote back to 0 and cancel the last FIVE DAYS of voting time. That's pretty damn aggravating, frankly.
Your reworded option there still doesn't actually fix the issue, because it is still implying Hyoza wants to stop players having input. That is not the case. That has never been the case. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing the option, or whether you really don't understand it. I'd suggest the four options would be better presented as:
> Allow staff to implement rules and mechanics changes without player polls. > Resolve the existing issues (four keys) to speed up implementation > Elect specific representatives for given issues to speed up implementation > No change, implementation is at an acceptable pace.
|
|
Vi-Poi
Administrator
Premier of Earth
PL: 434,410
Soul(x40P), Overdrive(x43)
Zeni: 1,247
Tag: @vipoi
Posts: 2,833
|
Post by Vi-Poi on Jun 10, 2015 20:55:32 GMT
I don't know how you'd intend to shame me Bao, I'm trying to do my job in the fairest way I perceive as a moderator. Right now, I see you as being the unfair actor here for reasons that Zuni has articulated. If each player as you say 'are entitled to have their input represented to their satisfaction' then why are you fighting the much more accurate language of the 'Allow staff to implement rules and mechanics changes without player polls' over the incorrect "Restrict new input on changes to staff only to speed up implementation'? Players could still implement cold-started new reforms under Hyoza's proposed system, so your option would be incorrect, further, you framing Hyoza's voting option would be in disagreement with your own words in this thread.
You've still not outlined why your system is different from a 'nothing in the rules changes' outcome, it's just like adding two no options in my opinion. The first no is a 'No without explanation' then your option is saying 'No, because this is how it should be working'. If I'm wrong please show me where you're proposing that can be enacted that is different from a null vote and I'll gladly eat my socks and ask that it be amended. The Koramund option wasn't added I'd guess because it'd weigh the vote towards yes, and further, the admins have objected to electing staff for popularity contest reasons (back when the staff entry rules were changed by Rev).
|
|
Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Jun 10, 2015 21:08:00 GMT
I see two valid options.
Change, or no change.
Koramund's suggestion contradicts a previous staff ruling.
Your 'suggestion' is not a systemic change.
I've been sitting out of these debates mostly out of respect, and my opinion being clearly stated in one of the threads above, but palming the blame for our current failings onto our current staff (they work harder than you or I, that's for sure) is excruciatingly offensive to me and I'd suggest you refrain from doing it.
In particular, your point about not 'splitting the polls' into two polls, even if valid, is counter to what has occurred in the past. You've suggested five separate polls for one issue (transfers IIRC), at one point, each one becoming more specific than the last and, if your suggestion was relevant, I don't see why we wouldn't pursue this format here.
|
|