Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Post content relevant to Guild Wars. This includes, but is not limited to: screenshots, guides, tutorials, questions & answers, etc.
Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Flo » Wed May 03, 2017 12:55 pm

Step 1: http://gwscr.fbgmguild.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2031
Step 2: http://gwscr.fbgmguild.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2042

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT 03.06.2017 23:51
Currently waiting for Misty and Has to deliver objectively better solutions to some niche problems.

THIS IS A DRAFT NO VOTE WILL BE COUNTED YET (feedback appreciated though)!
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZYvVr9 ... 4FphX_-VYg
THIS IS A DRAFT NO VOTE WILL BE COUNTED YET (feedback appreciated though)!

This is a DRAFT. DONT VOTE HERE, but you can give your feedback, ask for questions to be added or things to be rephrased.
You can only vote for questions that are in brackets -> [ ].
As a general guideline, people that [(aree registered for 3 months) and (have written 5 posts in the last two years)] or [(hold a record) and (are registered since 20.05.2017)] are considered active members of the community (this is still subject of discussion, but I think this covers pretty much everyone while preventing manipulation almost completely).

Public vote for GWSCR changes
1. Category: Legitimisation
[1.1] Do you agree with the way this vote is held and therefore with its results? (Yes/No)
NOTE: If more than 50% vote "No", we as moderators would probably have to determine the rules ourselves.
[1.2] Do you accept the basic population determined by the above mentionen rules to be representative? (Yes/No)
[1.3] Should only things that are specifically allowed be allowed? (Yes/No)
NOTE: "Yes" means that things have to be allowed before they eligible to be used in a record. "No" means that everything should be allowed that isnt forbidden.
2. Category: General Structure of Records
NOTE: You may vote for as many of the general solutions (2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4/2.5) as you like, the one with the most "Yes" votes will be chosen. You may also vote for all subordinite questions in case the general solution(s) you support do(es)nt end up getting a majority.
[2.1] Current System composed of pure (no 3rd party allowed at all), standard (some 3rd party are allowed while some others arent) and tas (all 3rd party allowed) (Yes/No)
NOTE: The following answers are only relevant if 2.1 or 2.4 happen to get a majority over the other options - you should vote here in case this happens.
[2.1.1] Should Texmod/UMod be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.2] Should health bar trackers be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.3] Should distance trackers be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.4] Should macros to execute multiple inputs (for example press skills 1-5 at the same time) be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.5] Should auto-pcons be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.6] Should hotkeys for items be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.7] Should hotkeys for movement be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.8] Should hotkeys for targetting be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.9] Should tools to interrupt (for example with ymlad) be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.10] Should the compass feature (shows you where you can and cant walk) of toolbox minimap be allowed in standard? (Yes/No)
[2.1.11] Should other forms of targetting than clicking on enemies, pressing tab or autotargetting (as given by the game itself) for be allowed in standard (excluding hotkeys, see 2.1.8)? (Yes/No)
[2.1.12] Should a minimap mod be allowed that shows you which direction enemies are facing? (Yes/No)
[2.1.13] Should a minimap mod be allowed that shows you where you placed your shadow of haste? (Yes/No)
[2.1.14] Should a minimap mod be allowed that shows you where your recall target is? (Yes/No)
[2.1.15] Should a minimap mod be allowed that shows you the area that is out of normal compass range? (Yes/No)
[2.1.16] Should a minimap mod be allowed that marks certain spots on the minimap? (Yes/No)
[2.1.17] Should a monitor for bonds be allowed, without beeing able to interact with the monitor? (Yes/No)
[2.1.18] Should a monitor for bonds be allowed, with beeing able to interact, for example cast or drop bonds? (Yes/No)
[2.1.19] Should forcing slow loads (and therefore connecting to the game really late) be allowed? (Yes/No)
[2.2] New System composed of only pure and tas (all standard records will become tas records) (Yes/No)
[2.3] New System composed of only pure (all standard and tas records would stop existing) (Yes/No)
[2.4] New system composed of only standard (all pure records would become standard records, tas record would stop existing)(Yes/No)
[2.5] New system composed of only tas (all pure and standard records would become tas records) (Yes/No)
[2.6] Should we tolerate little deviations from the new ruleset for old records in regard to 3rd party tools when those werent forbidden (for example distance trackers, minimap, bond monitor), since the people doing the record at the time did comply with the then current ruleset? (Yes/No)
3. Category: Videos and Screenshots
3.1 Category: Amount of videos required
NOTE: You may vote for as many options as you like, the one with the most "Yes" votes will be chosen.
[3.1.1] Records in the pure category require every single partymember to provide a video. (Yes/No)
[3.1.2] Records in the pure category require more than half of the party members to provide a video (so in case of 7 party members 4 videos, in case of 2 party members 2 videos) (Yes/No)
[3.1.3] Records in the pure category require one video. (Yes/No)
[3.1.4] Records in the standard category require every single partymember to provide a video. (Yes/No)
[3.1.5] Records in the standard category require more than half of the party members to provide a video (so in case of 7 party members 4 videos, in case of 2 party members 2 videos) (Yes/No)
[3.1.6] Records in the standard category require one video. (Yes/No)
[3.1.7] Records in the tas category require every single partymember to provide a video. (Yes/No)
[3.1.8] Records in the tas category require more than half of the party members to provide a video (so in case of 7 party members 4 videos, in case of 2 party members 2 videos) (Yes/No)
[3.1.9] Records in the tas category require one video. (Yes/No)
[3.2] Independent from 3.1, does every split (=split up for more than 30 seconds and/or for questionable tasks) have to be captured in at least one video? (Yes/No)
3.3 Category: Approving based on videos
NOTE: You may vote for as many options as you like, the one with the most "Yes" votes will be chosen.
[3.3.1] One mod has to see at least the amount of videos set in 3.1 (Yes/No)
[3.3.2] More than one mid has to see at least the amount of videos set in 3.1 (Yes/No)
[3.3.3] One video per record has to be public (Yes/No)
[3.3.4] All videos have to be public (Yes/No)
[3.4] Should we tolerate deviations from the new ruleset for old records in regard to videos, since the people doing the record at the time did comply with the then current ruleset? (Yes/No)
[3.5] Exception regarding 3.4: Should old coin drop records be sorted into the standard category (if that category still exists after the vote), even if it complied with the then current ruleset? (Yes/No)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, since there is nobody answering to the other topic (what I really hoped for tbh), heres the next step thats a lot more interesting again.

In the original plan, this includes:
"4. Determine how a vote would look like (anonymous? everyone can vote?)"

So, we should discuss the following questions:

Should everyone be allowed to vote?
Should only people be allowed to vote who have an account for at least x months or x years?
Should only people be allowed to vote who currently hold a record or have held one in the last x years?
Should mods be allowed to vote?
Should a vote be transferable?
Should everyone be allowed to vote but the vote of people who meet certain requirements is worth more?
If 30% vote in favor of something and 10% against and 60% dont mind the result, should the change be made?
How should we determine what gets voted on? Everything? Moderator decision? Collect stuff somewhere?


We wont get around to doing a recorded vote, else this could be manipulated too easily.

And as always, if I forget anything obvious, feel free to tell me and I ll edit it in.

This is the 2nd to last step. The next one after this will be the vote itself, based on the results of this thread.

Cruz
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Cruz » Wed May 03, 2017 1:16 pm

Should everyone be allowed to vote?
Should only people be allowed to vote who have an account for at least x months or x years?
I think everyone who cares to vote should get a vote. Would it be possible to manually verify accounts to combat sock-puppets, or is that too much work? I guess it depends on the turnup.
Should only people be allowed to vote who currently hold a record or have held one in the last x years?
No, there's no point to exclude people who are interested.
Should mods be allowed to vote?
Why not?
Should a vote be transferable?
What, why?
Should everyone be allowed to vote but the vote of people who meet certain requirements is worth more?
No!
If 30% vote in favor of something and 10% against and 60% dont mind the result, should the change be made?
Probably.

Misty
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Misty
Guild: Based God Stole My Zwag [FBGM]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Misty » Wed May 03, 2017 5:42 pm

Flo wrote: Should everyone be allowed to vote?
Should only people be allowed to vote who have an account for at least x months or x years?
No, nobody should be allowed to vote. All decisions should be based on logic and consensus.
Flo wrote:If 30% vote in favor of something and 10% against and 60% dont mind the result, should the change be made?
If even one person has a sound logical objection to a something, we need to hold off on implementing that change until their objection has been neutralised. If 99% of people don't feel comfortable with something but have no real way to express the problem, they can be ignored. This is not a popularity contest, so percentages don't matter.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Nika
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Nika » Wed May 03, 2017 6:58 pm

When did we ever define what to vote on?

Misty
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Misty
Guild: Based God Stole My Zwag [FBGM]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Misty » Thu May 04, 2017 12:23 am

Nika wrote:When did we ever define what to vote on?
This is the bit where we vote on how to vote on what to vote on... I think.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Flo » Thu May 04, 2017 3:11 am

Nika wrote:When did we ever define what to vote on?
We didnt. One option would be to have the vote about EVERYTHING, every structure, every detail and every rule. A different option would be to collect questions somewhere and vote based off that. But sure, waiting for your ideas.

I ll add this to the first post.

@Misty

Consensus is great but only works on really basic stuff. Consensus is not going to reunite completely different stances, like in the pro/contra minimap discussion. It just ends in two sides repeating their points and not moving a bit. But again, just tell us why you think the next time it would be different.

@Jang

Ty.

Jang
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:18 pm
Guild: [SenT]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Jang » Thu May 04, 2017 8:57 am

@Flo

Yw?

@Misty

Please provide us with a working system to decide purely based on logic which is failproof in terms of logically thinking, considering no human being on earth is, and can come up with solutions in a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore while you're at it don't forget that discussions have shown not to be an option in the past. Until then your opinion is not an option. If you do find a solution however you may aswell begin with revolutionizing every governing system IRL instead.

I personally agree more or less with what Cruz said only that I think not giving mods the right to vote may need to be given a second thought depending on how far their privileges go in terms of creating a poll (e.g. is there room to manipulate the options in your favor?).

Cruz
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 am
In-game name: Ashei Cruz

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Cruz » Thu May 04, 2017 9:13 am

This whole system would rely on mods not creating weighted poll options anyway, so I don't think that makes a difference.

Nika
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Nika » Thu May 04, 2017 10:54 am

Well we didn't use LOGIC in our rules until now and apparently want to change that now. Or don't we want to change that?

Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote and are votes weighted?

Postby Flo » Sun May 07, 2017 4:04 am

@Jang @Cruz

Yes, there would always be the opportunity to influence the result if only a subset of questions get voted on. Thats pretty unavoidable, but if someone has a better idea, go ahead. I think we Nika + Has + Me (+ Mike) represent diverse enough opinions that we should be able to figure out which options should be given.

But again, I am also not oposed to the idea of voting about EVERYTHING. It would take a while longer to set up and would probably reduce the number of people participating but then we would not have to deal with selecting questions and the whole stuff related to that problem.

Also, I think we should stop the practice of "this stuff is forbidden" and instead move towards "this stuff is allowed". So when a new thing comes around it needs to be allowed and not forbidden. This prevents confusion about whether a new tool is accepted in records without having an unsatisfying transition period.

@Nika

Dunno, give us your insight.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests