Amending GM Approval Rules

[WildX]

10. However, final decision is still our.

Perhaps this could be clarified a bit more; who and how?

And maybe finally change "our" with "ours", it's been bugging me for years.

[Crush]

Another detail I would like to address is uniqueness and long-running polls.

The current rules say "one poll per person" and "polls run indefinitely".

But the GM community suggestions forum is now running for years, and people change over time.

Should it be possible to create a new poll for someone when they already have one which wasn't successful, but which was a long time ago?

Should there be a minimum time to collect the votes?

Ohterwise we could have some surprises in form of threads created years ago, almost passed and then got forgotten, which are then suddenly tipped over by a few votes years later.

Background information: Most of the GM polls which passed, accumulated their votes in 4-6 weeks.

[Jaxad0127]

Yeah, expiration is good. 2 months, with yearly retry?

[Big Crunch]

I agree with the changes that have been suggested, including the time limit on polls. I think a 3 month limit on the polls is a good idea, along with the possibility of re-nominating every 6 months to a year there after.

BC

[straelyn]

Should that limit be retroactive?

[Crush]

Johannes suggestion of in-game-bound elections actually is the one i favor to the forum solution. The problems o11c mentioned in realizing this are the same on the forums ( see comments on 16. ) - so they would just be transferred to another, and for the purpose of voting a GameMaster, more suitable place. (correct me if I'm wrong as I have zero understanding of a technical solution to the "in game mail poll thingy")

The difference is that forum voting already works and has proven to be practicable, while an ingame voting system would take dozens of man-hours of development and testing to provide the functionality we already have, and it isn't even sure that it will be a superior solution.

The forum also allows to keep the voting and the discussion about the pros and cons of the candidate accessible in one place. Implementing a forum-like discussion system in the client would be a colossal workload of dubious value.

[o11c]

Even though it's not in the rules, we've been treating any poll over a year old as expired and eligible for restart.

huh ... recent successful polls have lasted just over one month, whereas older ones finished in just about a week. It always felt longer.

[Frost]

This all sounds good to me. We're not throwing out a system that works, but we are able to change it to reflect changes in the player base (like the fewer players now). Also, we no longer have a single person who makes arbitrary decisions about who becomes GM. We now have that responsibility as a community.

I agree that Rule 10 needs some flesh. Maybe something like:

10. Any GM candidate who passes the vote must still be approved by a consensus of existing GMs. Consensus means that each existing GM will try to find a way to work with the candidate on the team, and if they think that will be impossible, they should veto the candidate.

I think that's basically how it has worked in the past, but of course this is an opportunity to set new rules.
Other options include: a majority of GMs, some combination of GMs and admins and devs (or TMWC), or even have some mechanism for player votes to override a veto by other GMs.
In my experience, it is destructive to force a close working relationship on anyone who objects in the strongest possible terms. In other words, if we ram in a new GM over the concerns of their new peers, that is likely to poison the situation for all. Consensus puts people in the sometimes uncomfortable position where they must find an acceptable solution, and not merely overpower objections.

[Quinny]

I like x amount of player votes cancels veto.

[Crush]

10. Any GM candidate who passes the vote must still be approved by a consensus of existing GMs

What about consensus of the other committee members?

I like x amount of player votes cancels veto.

I don't think this would be a good idea. You can't force the TMW committee to work with someone they don't want to work with. They are volunteers and they are self-managing.

[Nard]

There is no need to change these rules, at least now:

• There is no need of extra GM with so few players
• Silent dawn was elected with old criteria with no problem.
• 20 posts is little for a regular contributor or someone who wants to contribute.
• Please stop calling these polls an election. They have none of the characteristics of an election: limited time, well identified voters, warranties that no one can vote twice, vote time extends even if "candidate" has enough votes.

If you do not plan to change them in depth, there is no interest do discuss the values, TMWC can decide, it is it's job.
Thus my suggestion is:

• Open a thread on the candidate for a fixed period of time to be chosen.
• Open a Poll for a fixed period of time to be chosen.
• At the end of the time period GHP-TMWC takes it's decision considering the debate, the number of known different contributors and pro and con ratios.
• Allow blank vote, it is an expressed opinion.
• 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.

The only way to warrant that no cheat will occur again is to have a set of identified (RL identity) players/contributors-voters. Our computer specialists will surely have ideas to submit us to establish such a list. Unless you decide something like that there is no way to be sure that someone uses a proxy and cheat the election such as it occured several times in the past.

[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,

[Nard]

[*]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.

[Frost]

There is no need of extra GM with so few players

Until our GM staff can provide 24-hour coverage in the game, I think player number is irrelevant. Also, both GMs and players have told me they would like more GMs. There's clearly some interest.

Silent dawn was elected with old criteria with no problem.

So were Tiana, Big Crunch, Narus, and others. History isn't an argument against change.

20 posts is little for a regular contributor or someone who wants to contribute.

We want to hear what players think too, not just regular forum participants. In particular, many players are not comfortable in English and do not often post to these forums.

Please stop calling these polls an election. They have none of the characteristics of an election: limited time, well identified voters, warranties that no one can vote twice, vote time extends even if "candidate" has enough votes.

It's clearly more than an amusing forum poll. Merriam-Webster defines voting as "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision." We can call it a "vote" if you prefer. Note that we are discussing what time-limit to impose on GM voting.

If you do not plan to change them in depth, there is no interest do discuss the values, TMWC can decide, it is it's job.

I believe this discussion basically "throws open the doors" to new ideas. If the result ends up similar to what we previously had, that doesn't mean the discussion was invalid or insincere. I think the very fact that this thread was made public indicates that the TMWC wants to hear what players think.

Thus my suggestion is: Open a thread on the candidate for a fixed period of time to be chosen.
Open a Poll for a fixed period of time to be chosen.

Based on previous posts to this thread, it seems many people agree there should be a time limit.

At the end of the time period GHP-TMWC takes it's decision considering the debate, the number of known different contributors and pro and con ratios.

Certainly. A vote without a resulting decision has little value. We're discussing exactly who should make that decision, and with what factors.

Allow blank vote, it is an expressed opinion.

What does that opinion express?

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.

Discussion is part of the voting process here. People are encouraged to vote with the information they have available, and to reconsider their decisions when new information arrives. Do you think people will be more informed in their votes if they are prohibited from using new information?

The only way to warrant that no cheat will occur again is to have a set of identified (RL identity) players/contributors-voters. Our computer specialists will surely have ideas to submit us to establish such a list. Unless you decide something like that there is no way to be sure that someone uses a proxy and cheat the election such as it occured several times in the past.

If "our computer specialists" can achieve what you propose, they would be better employed by FaceBook, MasterCard, national governments, and Interpol than by this small project. This proposal seems to require unlimited cost for a real but limited benefit that is not necessary to choose a GM.

[Nard]

There is no need of extra GM with so few players

Until our GM staff can provide 24-hour coverage in the game, I think player number is irrelevant. Also, both GMs and players have told me they would like more GMs. There's clearly some interest.

Considering the number of effective players, there is no need to have a GM behind each of them. and now, at least randomly; about all hours are covered. (If I include you )

Silent dawn was elected with old criteria with no problem.

So were Tiana, Big Crunch, Narus, and others. History isn't an argument against change.

Silent dawn , on the opposite to former GMs, was elected in a period were the regular player number was just a bit higher than now, that's why I quoted this poll.

20 posts is little for a regular contributor or someone who wants to contribute.

We want to hear what players think too, not just regular forum participants. In particular, many players are not comfortable in English and do not often post to these forums.

/me @broadcast English is required in public! More seriously, the topic about Player vote was discussed a lot here. To my knowledge no good solution was found at this moment.

Please stop calling these polls an election. They have none of the characteristics of an election: limited time, well identified voters, warranties that no one can vote twice, vote time extends even if "candidate" has enough votes.

It's clearly more than an amusing forum poll. Merriam-Webster defines voting as "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision." We can call it a "vote" if you prefer. Note that we are discussing what time-limit to impose on GM voting.

I never called this forum an amusing one. I said that it was not an election, but a poll, which is indeed a kind of vote. If I considered it as fun I would not have taken the time to answer this topic. Merriam Webster is just a dictionary, it has not to deal with such fairness things that happened in Alons or mrgrey's polls. And since I read that, I have an absolute zero trust that it didn't happen elsewhere.
http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 092#p89092
http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 29#p113329

Sock puppeting really only harms the community in this case

and I agree.

I believe this discussion basically "throws open the doors" to new ideas.[...]We're discussing exactly who should make that decision, and with what factors.

looking at the first posts, I had not this impression. And I still do not have the impression that anything or anyone but TMWC will take the final decision. and I agree with that.

Allow blank vote, it is an expressed opinion.

What does that opinion express?

"I have no opinion (I am indifferent, I don't care) about this guy as a GM" or "I do not want to say yes but I do not strongly oppose" or "I don't want to vote for (resp against) the candidate for personal reasons" but "I feel concerned with this poll and want my opinion to be taken into account"

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.

Discussion is part of the voting process here. People are encouraged to vote with the information they have available, and to reconsider their decisions when new information arrives. Do you think people will be more informed in their votes if they are prohibited from using new information?

I think their vote is biased when they know the result of the previous votes. thus I think the best is just as irl:
Discuss, make your opinion, then decide.
I have the impression that you (collective) fear that a GM could be choosen with too few votes. As I do not consider the polls just as polls, and not elections I don't see any problem with that. TMWC could nominate a GM with no poll that I would still consider him/her as the others. You Frost were not polled and act s a GM; does it makes you different? No.

The only way to warrant that no cheat will occur again is to have a set of identified (RL identity)[...]

If "our computer specialists" can achieve what you propose, they would be better employed by FaceBook, MasterCard, national governments, and Interpol than by this small project. This proposal seems to require unlimited cost for a real but limited benefit that is not necessary to choose a GM.[/quote]
This small project doesnot require the same warranties as governments. There are costless ways to be reasonably sure of a person's identity, If I know them I think you know them too. Credit Card is a good idea... facebook is really a bad example btw