Policy Review Policy Review - CAP Round Table

[tennisace]

Approved by DougJustDoug.

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

This is a bit of a play off of my previous "Registered Voting" PR thread. However, it's a completely different approach, so bear with me.

During the CAP revision process, and sometimes in PR threads, people start chiming in with no idea of what CAP is, what the Pokemon are and are capable of, and start clogging up the threads with nonsense. This doesn't happen as often in the PR threads, since they're moderated quite carefully, but it was quite apparent in the Revision threads, where people who had never been on the server were posting changes and suggestions.

This is my suggestion. I would like to extend the TL selection panel even further to a "Round Table" of sorts. This "Round Table" would serve as the TL selection panel, and would be able to submit and post in PR threads and Revision threads freely, like the Policy Review in Stark Mountain. The CAP polls would stay open to everyone; this would only affect PR threads and Revision threads.

I feel this is quite necessary, thanks to posts like these:

Also the public should be able to post and discuss in the PR and Revision threads, but the votes would be limited to RT members.

This suggestion has been added to my proposal.

 

[eric the espeon]

I have general support for this but it all depends on how it would be implemented.
Also the public should be able to post and discuss in the PR and Revision threads, but the votes would be limited to RT members.

 

[Time Mage]

The idea is good, but membership shouldn't be permanent.

I mean, I honestly think I would be a good pick for that hypothetical Round Table in the times of Syclant and Revenankh, but right now, my opinion about balancing the other two pokémon is totally irrelevant, as I just don't play frequently (or at all).

Posting in PR threads "only" requires some common sense and a general knowledge about the project and the metagame, as well as a good understanding of the game mechanics. So probably, people who are good to post on PR threads now will be good in the future, too. But in the case of revision threads, we need people that, on top of the above requirements, also knows the CURRENT metagame. And since CAP is an ever-evolving metagame, that means that they have to be active players.

 

[billymills]

I agree with Time Mage, membership should only be as long as you are a strong member within CAP.

The idea is good for TLs, and when quick decisions need to be made, but the idea behind CAP is that it is open to everyone. This group cannot interfere with the process, in polls, and elsewhere.

 

[Bass]

I like eric's suggestion regarding your proposal for a "Round Table". There are going to be plenty of people who clutter PR and Revision threads with terrible posts, but there will inevitably be users who will not meet the qualifications to be on the "Round Table" that also know what they are talking about in their posts. The members of the "Round Table" will be undoubtedly the most knowledgeable members of the project, but I don't think it's a good idea to not allow these other knowledgeable posters to share their opinion. I am fine with letting the members of the said "Round Table" having the final vote on all policies under this circumstance.

 

[tennisace]

Also the public should be able to post and discuss in the PR and Revision threads, but the votes would be limited to RT members.

Actually that sounds like a really good idea. I'll add that in.

The idea is good, but membership shouldn't be permanent.

I forgot to expand that, it wouldn't be permanent, only the TLs/Forum Mods would be. I'll add that too.

Edit: Magmortified brought up an interesting point on the server: How big should the panel be? I say around 25-30 max, but I'm not sure.

 

[RBG]

Why does the panel need a size limit?

Also, I agree wit Eric's additions. I don't feel I'm good enough, to on this panel, but i feel l've had good ideas to share

 

[tennisace]

Why does the panel need a size limit?

Also, I agree wit Eric's additions. I don't feel I'm good enough, to on this panel, but i feel l've had good ideas to share

It doesn't need a size limit per say, but it just needs to be an odd number to prevent ties.

 

[Kamen Rider]

Im all for allowing discussion for all but keeping voting to the Round Table members. 25 seems like a good number for a limit as well.

 

[Flounder]

While I think that, in some respects, this isn't a terrible idea, I don't really like the idea of how it limits the "community" aspects, especially in revision threads (even though it's that not relevant, I doubt Pyroak/Fidgit will ever be evised); it takes away from the democratic process - the revision is now left to 25 people?

Even if we assumed, in these scenarios, it worked like the American Electoral College, it overlooks a key factor: our electoral college works because the Electors are obligated to vote the way the popular vote in their state went, and even a change in 5 votes rarely will have an effect on the outcome - seeing as it's only 1% of the entire system.

Here, it wouldn't work. First, you can't really guarantee that a person would vote based on the opinions of some, seeing as they aren't obligated to vote based on the opinions of a select group.

Additionally, you can't guarantee you aren't giving the "Round Table" the right amount of power - too little power and they do nothing, too much and you're not really considering the community. Even if a lot of the panel interchanges, you still have a good amount of "static" members: Here's a probable list of who those "static members" would be:

• Hyra
• G_T
• Sunday
• tennis
• darkie
• Bass
• Doug
• X-Act
  

So there's your basic list. All the TLs who still actually want to do with us (seeing as cooper's been god knows where, and asked to be removed from the TL selection panel), forum mods, Doug.

Then you've got people like Mekkah and Fishin, bringing the "static" list up to 10+ members.

So now we have 40%+ of our panel that isn't ever going to change, and that number would grow with each CAP completion... not to mention you'd probably have people who'd get invited back pretty often. (btw, at what intervals would the non-static members be interchanged?)

I mean, it seems like a good idea... but I'm just not seeing it as working out how it looks on paper. (see: Communism)

 

[tennisace]

While I think that, in some respects, this isn't a terrible idea, I don't really like the idea of how it limits the "community" aspects, especially in revision threads (even though it's that not relevant, I doubt Pyroak/Fidgit will ever be evised); it takes away from the democratic process - the revision is now left to 25 people?

25 voters. The difference is anyone can contribute.

Even if we assumed, in these scenarios, it worked like the American Electoral College, it overlooks a key factor: our electoral college works because the Electors are obligated to vote the way the popular vote in their state went, and even a change in 5 votes rarely will have an effect on the outcome - seeing as it's only 1% of the entire system.

Here, it wouldn't work. First, you can't really guarantee that a person would vote based on the opinions of some, seeing as they aren't obligated to vote based on the opinions of a select group.

Because the opinions of the community aren't always the best for the project. See: bandwagoning.

Additionally, you can't guarantee you aren't giving the "Round Table" the right amount of power - too little power and they do nothing, too much and you're not really considering the community. Even if a lot of the panel interchanges, you still have a good amount of "static" members: Here's a probable list of who those "static members" would be:

• Hyra
• G_T
• Sunday
• tennis
• darkie
• Bass
• Doug
• X-Act
  

So there's your basic list. All the TLs who still actually want to do with us (seeing as cooper's been god knows where, and asked to be removed from the TL selection panel), forum mods, Doug.

Then you've got people like Mekkah and Fishin, bringing the "static" list up to 10+ members.

So now we have 40%+ of our panel that isn't ever going to change, and that number would grow with each CAP completion... not to mention you'd probably have people who'd get invited back pretty often. (btw, at what intervals would the non-static members be interchanged?)

25 was a rough number, it could go up to like ~40 easily. I think they have the right amount of power, however there isn't really a right amount of power. I think I balanced out the checks and balances pretty well, by allowing anyone to contribute but only certain people to vote a la the suspect test.

 

[Flounder]

Bandwagoning isn't really too valid of an excuse.

You don't know if the person is voting for something because everyone else is, or if it's because they prefer that option, nor can you assume that enough people do it to radically change the vote.

People could be voting for something because, they, you know, have independent thought?

 

[darkie]

Please don't do whitetext in pr threads. Seriously.

 

[bojangles]

I disagree with this idea, because it kind of takes the project out of the hands of the Community. By having a "Round Table", that would severely limit everybody's influence and produce a kind of elitism vibe. Take for example Gore v. Bush in 2000. Even though the popular vote wound up with Gore, Bush was elected president because of the Electoral College. This is the kind of stuff that could start happening, when the Round Table members decide to vote what they want instead of what the majority wants. It could dissuade many new and old contributors to CAP from helping with the new projects.

Also, look at CAP 1 when Cooper was the TL. For whatever reason, what he always wanted to win ended up losing. If he was given authority over what the outcomes were, we would have ended up with a completely different CAP 1.

I realize that there are a lot of new posters clogging up the discussions, but we could do something slightly more democratic, like having an opening thread for each CAP, where everybody who would want to vote for that CAP would post to enter. No special groups, no tests, just a simple post, so it could be made clear that you would stick with the project from beginning to end, and not make completely ridiculous suggestions.

 

[Bass]

I disagree with this idea, because it kind of takes the project out of the hands of the Community. By having a "Round Table", that would severely limit everybody's influence and produce a kind of elitism vibe. Take for example Gore v. Bush in 2000. Even though the popular vote wound up with Gore, Bush was elected president because of the Electoral College. This is the kind of stuff that could start happening, when the Round Table members decide to vote what they want instead of what the majority wants. It could dissuade many new and old contributors to CAP from helping with the new projects.

Also, look at CAP 1 when Cooper was the TL. For whatever reason, what he always wanted to win ended up losing. If he was given authority over what the outcomes were, we would have ended up with a completely different CAP 1.

I realize that there are a lot of new posters clogging up the discussions, but we could do something slightly more democratic, like having an opening thread for each CAP, where everybody who would want to vote for that CAP would post to enter. No special groups, no tests, just a simple post, so it could be made clear that you would stick with the project from beginning to end, and not make completely ridiculous suggestions.

Did you even read the entire OP? tennisace's proposal is only going to affect PR threads and Revision threads:

This is my suggestion. I would like to extend the TL selection panel even further to a "Round Table" of sorts. This "Round Table" would serve as the TL selection panel, and would be able to submit and post in PR threads and Revision threads freely, like the Policy Review in Stark Mountain. The CAP polls would stay open to everyone; this would only affect PR threads and Revision threads.

 

[X-Act]

Well, just for your information, I'm not active on the server enough to be warranted a vote for the revision threads... in fact, I barely ever voted in them at all. Policy Review might be a different matter, though.

 

[j_hunter]

This is an excellent proposal that should definitely be implemented in Revision threads and voting in Policy Review threads, as those with the most up to date knowledge and experience of the CAP metagame and procedure are logically the best people to make decisions for the community.

On the other hand, it sounds so horrible elitist.

 

[eric the espeon]

Ok time to introduce another idea to this, how about the public voting in at least some of the RT members?

I like this idea for several reasons firstly it would give the public at least some votes on the panel (past TLs, forum mods and those that they vote in would make up much of it.) and make the voted members want to go with public opinion. It would also help with the probable cries of elitism by allowing everyone who can get public support a chance to be on he RT.

It would mean that CaP would have 3 different methods of government.
1. Benign Dictatorship (DougJustDoug)
2. Representative Democracy (The elected members of the Round Table)
3. Pure Democracy (the people who vote on the threads)

Doug would still run everything and have the final choice, but the Round Table (Some permanent members, some elected by the permanent members and some elected by the public.) would advise Doug on policy matters and vote on PR issues as well as helping with making PR threads and other issues.

The general public would always have the final choice on polls about Pokemon creation so would always chose the result of each project.


I would also propose that activity on the server was accounted for more than activity on the forum when choosing who should vote on Revision threads. Maybe people should have to reach a certain rating on the ladder?

 

[beej]

I'm not sure if I'm 100% with this idea. While I find it just as much of a problem as the next guy when we have bandwagon votes in PR threads and revisions, I think that this round table has the potential to bring us all the way to the other side of the spectrum, where very few people are able to contribute to these processes, like server mods, past TLs, etc. I really don't think it's been a problem when people who don't command much authority but understand the process and the subjects involved have voted, for example Flounder, Dixie, Plus and others.

Unless I'm totally looking at this the wrong way, the goal of this would be to cut down on random bandwagon votes, and unless we make the requirements for getting on the "table" as simple as being active on the server and having a good understanding of the project, I think it could be harmful in other ways. I'm not willing to give up the community aspect of this for minimizing random voting.

 

[bojangles]

Did you even read the entire OP? tennisace's proposal is only going to affect PR threads and Revision threads:

Sorry, I misunderstood what he was saying.

 

[Icy Vegeta]

I totally agree on this concept of a "Senate" of sorts. The only question I have, is how would we go about making the decision of who gets put on the Senate?

 

[Flounder]

I totally agree on this concept of a "Senate" of sorts. The only question I have, is how would we go about making the decision of who gets put on the Senate?

From my understanding, it'd work like the current TL selection panel.

Permanent members nominate other, non-permanent members to serve for x amount of time.

 

[tennisace]

From my understanding, it'd work like the current TL selection panel.

Permanent members nominate other, non-permanent members to serve for x amount of time.

For about half of the panel. Normal users would also nominate people.

 

[jagged_angel]

CAP Revision

Because the opinions of the community aren't always the best for the project. See: bandwagoning.

Bandwagoning isn't really too valid of an excuse.

You don't know if the person is voting for something because everyone else is, or if it's because they prefer that option, nor can you assume that enough people do it to radically change the vote.

People could be voting for something because, they, you know, have independent thought?

Flounder's post is important. Where is the evidence of bandwagoning in the CAP Revision threads? Where is the radical alteration of the vote by noobs?

Granted, the community and Pure Democracy style polls do not always produce the most polished results but I find I'm hard pressed to see the huge influence of 'noob voting' you seem to be certain of. This is a community project so in order to restrict voters rights there needs to be a pretty damn good reason.

Without a clearer more concrete picture of the detrimental effect of uninformed voting on the CAP Revision process, I don't see the need for a change such as the one you're proposing.

If we take the Syclant revision as an example, one voter backed up his competitive movepool votes with ridiculous flavour based reasoning.

The poster clearly hadn't read the OP and showed no sign of having playtested Syclant. However, that was only one person. One noob vote didn't invalidate the whole revision process, and most experienced users seem happy with the revised 'Clant.

It's impossible to say the motivations and/or experience of other voters, no matter how many times you assert 'they've never been on the server' or 'most voters don't have any clue what a Syclant is' or 'bandwagoning'.
People could have different usernames, or come on the server at different times, or be sporadic but long term server users.

Whatever their background, or reasoning behind their votes, you cannot automatically assume they are clueless because you don't recognise their username.

Policy Review

Policy Review threads are largely discussion based so correct me if I'm wrong but eric's proposal of allowing public posting in PR threads means that not much will change here if a CAP Round Table is formed right?

I'm not clear on the role of the CAP Round Table regarding PR. Maybe I have missed some important PR threads but I thought that PR threads normally come to a conclusion without any formal vote?

I fully support the strict moderation of PR threads encouraging only intelligent, experienced and informed posters.

If clueless idiots are derailing or clogging up PR threads on a regular basis then yes the problem needs dealing with. However, I haven't seen evidence of this - maybe because the mods are efficiently deleting retarded or off topic posts?

 

[eric the espeon]

I'm not clear on the role of the CAP Round Table regarding PR. Maybe I have missed some important PR threads but I thought that PR threads normally come to a conclusion without any formal vote?

For pretty much every PR thread there has been a general consensus about what the outcome should be (maybe not some of the newer ones like countering) and Doug has gone with what people think.
If, as will probably happen and may be happening now, we get a very closely argued PR thread a "Round Table" vote would be the ideal way to solve it.

For some issues it would probably be better to have a panel of experienced community members to avoid what can sometimes happen in public votes under rare circumstances (The main one I am thinking of was EVO process Poll. No need to discuss it further, you see what I am trying to avoid.).