Amending GM Approval Rules

[Johanne Laliberté]

Sorry, I don't agree with **re-voting**, in real life when we have election you can not change your vote, it's done!!!!

When you vote it's because you get enough informations about this person and you trust him or her and he/she can do the job.

Regards

[Cassy]

About revoting:

I wouldn't compare RL with VL, in this case and in general.
You know, RL has bugs too
It might doesn't look like it, but I have big experience in moderating gaming sites and can tell you a lot of nice and sad stories.

One of them:
A friendly guy, helpful, grown-up, always in a good mood, big experience and skilled in the games he played - this was in 2007.
I'm lucky we didn't need more moderators back in that time, because I probably would have made him one.
He was something like a friend, so we thought we would "know" him.
Summer 2008: One day he said he was in a hospital, having lost both of his parents and is unable to walk.
He was serious about it, but it turned out he was lying (he admitted it).
Since this day everything changed and he enjoyed swearing and insulting for no reasons, so I had to ban him...

Another example:
A woman at the age of about 30 (forgot exact age).
Same stuff about helpful, grown-up, good mood, etc. as in above story.
One difference: She became moderator.
It took nearly 2 years until it turned out that she let her friend, a well known cheater and hacker, play highscore games for her, which was clearly against the rules (she admitted he played for her).
Since you could also win (and spend!) real money in these games, she betrayed hundreds of people.
This was the beginning of the end of the singleplayer/highscore part of this site.


Why I tell these stories:
-> People can change and therefore your opinion about them
-> Even if people don't change, you can hardly say you know these people, even after a long time of playing with them. Often you realize they also have an other side, even if it's just small things - they can change your opinion about these people.

Therefore, in my opinion, re-voting must be enabled.


About TMW:
I am here since the beginning of March now.
I caught one of the first persons I ever met and like, someone who is here for a long, long time and I thought who would be a good GM... afk-botting.
My worst moment on TMW so far...

[Nard]

About revoting:
[...]
Another example:
A woman at the age of about 30 (forgot exact age).
Same stuff about helpful, grown-up, good mood, etc. as in above story.
One difference: She became moderator.
It took nearly 2 years until it turned out that she let her friend, a well known cheater and hacker, play highscore games for her, which was clearly against the rules (she admitted he played for her).
Since you could also win (and spend!) real money in these games, she betrayed hundreds of people.
This was the beginning of the end of the singleplayer/highscore part of this site.

I do not really understand what you try to demonstrate: A GM can show a different personality after the election or poll whatever the rules. That's a different problem that could be discussed too. As long as there is a long enough debate, (a month or two?) anyone has time enough to make his/her opinion. When the vote occurs (and discussion is closed), the result must not make someone able to decide that his/her advice is more important than the others and decide to cheat the poll and make it invalid in the best case (there is still the possibility to make all polls invalid ). Keeping the result secret until the end and forbidding revoting is the only way to warrant some objective result (cf Alons' poll). I agree with you, perfection does not belong to real world too, but in matter of elections, there is at the moment no better rules than the ones that are set in democracies. It is not possible to transpose them entirely in TMW, we should stick as close as possible to them. Actual rules are only acceptable in a small community, where everyone knows who is who. If it is not possible, then keep the actual rules (the number of votes is not that much important, the debate is more to my eyes), and consider it only as what it is: an opinion poll, not an election. (I have nothing against that).

[Cassy]

I do not really understand what you try to demonstrate: A GM can show a different personality after the election or poll whatever the rules. That's a different problem that could be discussed too.

Little misunderstanding: I didn't mean to point at GMs showing a different personality after being elected, I meant to show that people can become different (or have always been different) in general and your opinion about them can change in just one short moment. I had to experience this a few times, so that's why I'm sure that re-voting is better

[Crush]

Regarding revoting: I think it's important to allow revoting, because polls run for a long time.

Months before real-world political elections (to extend on this pointless, non-applicable metaphor) there is a public discussion about who to vote for. During this campaigning period, there are informal polls to check who is ahead in public opinion. People are allowed to change their opinion until the election day, even when they participated in one of these polls.

In our GM election system, early votes take the role of these polls. It gives everyone an idea where the public opinion is going. But the discussion isn't over before the required amount of votes is reached, so people should be allowed to change their opinion when they voted early.

And we need early voters to estimate if a candidate has a chance and who even warrants research and discussion.

So I would rather like people to vote early with their gut-feeling, take part in the discussion, collect and look at arguments for or against the candidate, re-evaluate their stance and revote when it has changed.

Regarding voting to abstain: It's pointless. When you have no opinion, just don't vote.

[Nard]

When voting for a GM It is more important to make your opinion and after the others expressed opinion and personal conviction than on the number of persons who are supposed to vote for/against. First voters number, just as the real in life polls which are often wrong, is a really a bad criterion; because it is not statistically reliable thus meaningless and even more if these first voters can change their votes without saying they did. I am not totally against the fact that debates could be accompanied by a poll, but the real election must be time limited, with no revoting and/or no partial results displayed until the end of voting (even to TMWC members).

[Chicka-Maria]

[*]Do not allow revoting: voters are supposed to be conscient of their vote and should not be able to change their opinions considering the votes of other contributors.[/list].

Don't agree with this, there is re-voting because people can change their minds of whether they want the person to be a GM or not. Peoples behavior do change and with the internet community we have for The Mana World people should be allowed to change their minds about people while the poll is going.

regards,

Then it will never be an election: In an election voters make their opinion by watching and participating to debates; then they vote once. I suppose it is like that in Canada too.

Difference is...this is the internet not Canada or any other part of the world. If this place was based off real life we would have mouboos in our bedrooms and giant terranites on the street.

regards,

[veryape]

----OFFTOPIC FAFF-----
I don't think that we should compare this to electorial democracy, what is the point of that? In that case we should elect a new board of GM's once every x months or whatever. Does that really serve any purpose?

I'd like to compare it to the board of a company instead, where we the public are the shareholders and GM's can be seen as board members. Shareholders can appoint new board members by a poll, and are able to fire board members too. I think the same should go for us, over 20 votes = political rights to eighter be a candidate and cast your vote.

This is by no way a perfect system, but i think that a link to any ongoing polls in the news should grab everyones attention, and people that does not have the right to have their vote counted should still be encouraged to give their opinion. If a player that might not have 20 posts on the boards posts on the forums it might sway other players eighter way.

Also i think that it is fair for people to be able to change their votes, if i click the wrong option it might affect a poll at these low number of participants, I don't see any point for not being able to change your mind / correct a bad click.

TLDR
This boils down to:
1. Decrese the needed numbers for a poll to be considered as done to 50.

2. In the same way as a GM can be nominated they should also be able to be stripped of their rights by the public if they don't behave as expected.

3. I strongly like the ability to change my vote.

[Jaxad0127]

So I would rather like people to vote early with their gut-feeling, take part in the discussion, collect and look at arguments for or against the candidate, re-evaluate their stance and revote when it has changed.

Regarding voting to abstain: It's pointless. When you have no opinion, just don't vote.

How do you change from "You" or "No" to no opinion?

[Nard]

I don't think that we should compare this to electorial democracy, what is the point of that? In that case we should elect a new board of GM's once every x months or whatever. Does that really serve any purpose?

To be clear once again:

1. The actual rules are not the worst possible. but past has shown they could easily be cheated. I have nothing against keeping them as is (with a few adjustments) but calling them an election is just laughable because they will never be fair with certitude. They are an opinion poll.
2. If players and TMWC want to call them an election, the rules match some fairness criterions and we must be sure that they are followed (especially the one person= one vote one).

About opinion change and revoting:
Nothing prevents you to change your opinion, even multiple times, during the discussion period. (there can be an opinion poll during this period with published results).
During votation revoting is not allowed and/or result must be kept unknown to prevent pressure on voters: It happened in the past that some players were asked to remove their post in a GM poll. You can also see with Alons and mrgrey's examples; that once the debate has taken place, the election is fast and the result is not discussable.

@Chicka: This is not because this discussion happens on internet that a cat should not be called a cat, an election an election, and an opinion poll an opinion poll, and an a sham of election by it's name.

Regarding voting to abstain: It's pointless. When you have no opinion, just don't vote.

If some one pretends to be players' representative, and GM are not at the moment (there has been a proposition to have one in TMWC), then it is important that you can make the difference between someone who doesn't feel concerned with the election and abstains and someone who is concerned, has an opinion, and wants to say he has not enough elements to decide. This point is especially important in the actual situation, and if players who don't speak english well enough are allowed to vote as Frost suggested.

[Rill]

[...] The Mana World people should be allowed to change their minds about people while the poll is going.

[...] in my opinion, re-voting must be enabled.

[...] I think it's important to allow revoting, because polls run for a long time.

[...] I strongly like the ability to change my vote.

I agree.

[Wombat]

On re-voting, I believe Jax was saying a no opinion option is needed should someone move from a"yes" or "no" to "not sure" or "no opinion". I believe Nard was also saying this? If so, then I agree with a "no opinion or not certain" option existing. IIRC we can't remove our votes completely through the forum.

[Jaxad0127]

I think with the additional option, approval should be changed to greater than 50% of all votes, at least 3 times as many yes as no. So 11 yes, 3 no, 6 undecided would pass (Assuming 20 is the new threshold).

[Frost]

I think with the additional option, approval should be changed to greater than 50% of all votes, at least 3 times as many yes as no. So 11 yes, 3 no, 6 undecided would pass (Assuming 20 is the new threshold).

Holy complications, Batman!

As I understand it, the "undecided" option would be a hack to let people retract their yes/no vote. Those who wish to not vote either way can already...not vote either way.
Why would we count votes that were retracted?

[o11c]

Current rules are equivalent to "at least 3x as many yes as no". The current rule applies the required number of votes as yes-only, not total number of votes.

So, someone could win with (40, 10, 999). But if we see a lot of abstentions but the vote numbers still climb, it may be a sign we should increase the limit again.