 |
|  |
 |
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970 time: 00:31
|
|
How does the following solution sound, to ensure that proposed changes are not voted in too quickly, and that everyone has had a chance to think them out and to provide their input?
quote: Originally posted by Dominae
1. Changes are "proposed" and "discussed". This is informal, like we've been doing it.
2. Changes become "under consideration". This means that they will formally go to a vote within the next week or so (whatever), during which time everyone has a final chance to speak their mind.
3. Changes proceed to a "vote", and are "implemented".
I know this sounds a little bureaucratic, but should proceed smoothly in practice.
|
I personally think that this is a great idea, but until we get a first version of the mod, I would like to see the "under consideration" period shortened to two days. After the C3C 1.10 patch, I really would like to have an AU mod very soon for people to experiment and play epic games, not to mention AU games. After the first version is out, I have no problem increasing it to a week.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ducki
|
|
It would be nice if all our panelists were given some special pseudo-moderator flag in this forum only so that special voting thread(s) could be opened for (each) proposal(s).
Or if the poll could be put on the discussion thread, but limited to just the panelists.
I'm just trying to figure a way to keep the votes(and the notification that it's voting time) from getting lost in the debate posts.
Maybe too much work, though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
Changes that are "under consideration" could be flagged (topped/pinned, whatever) in the forum. Therefore anyone could, at a glance, see what issues are currently under review, and not miss out on anything before its too late.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ducki
|
|
quote: Originally posted by nbarclay
If an idea doesn't have a clear consensus behind it, the change should probably be deferred |
Would giving every new proposal an automatic 1-vote deficit help in delineating those with clear consensus and those without?
With the minimum 5 votes, passage is barely above 50%.
If you start with -1, then you have to have more than 2/3 majority for passage no matter how many voters there are.
Not sure if the plan is to operate solely on a majority vote or to go for unanimity. I think 4/5, 5/6, 5/7 could demonstrate "clear concensus" without require unanimity.
Just a suggestion, ignore at will.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ducki
|
|
As much as I would like it in the mod, there seems to be some fairly strong debate on whether the previous exclusion of a Victorious Army for Military Academy would be C3C balanced. There are at least two panel members that are strongly against it, so I feel it should be further discussed.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|