Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
Moderator: Light
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
So private voting, public results
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
Yes. After thinking about it more, I believe the way we did it in L-57 was best.Hoax wrote:So private voting, public results
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
But do we want voter anonymity still? From what's been said, doing away with the ID system (presume this was overlooked for the last vote) but still keeping the voting phase private sounds like a good compromise. I would go for this anyway unless there's some input suggesting otherwise
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
It avoids pressure from players outside of the team.blondie wrote:I don't see any benefit to anonymity.
I'm not saying vote should (or shouldn't) be anonymous. Both have downside. So I don't really care if vote should be anonymous or not.
Just because you are a team leader or a server owner doesn't necessarily mean you're a leader in the community. I'm both and I don't consider myself as such.blondie wrote:These voters are supposed to be leaders in the community.
What I get from that part is that only mister or appleseed can vote for abc. And of course they will vote against any sanction against mister or vogue, because despite all the "IDGAF" they used, they care. A lot.blondie wrote:Currently the person who controls abc's vote on the current topics is Appleseed, who Mister signed up on last Ladle's roster as co-team leader even though Appleseed did not attend the Ladle itself. Appleseed quit abc and joined Mister's new clan. He has consulted none of the abc members on what abc wants the team's vote to be. So now, Mister, Vogue and Vein essentially have a vote in their own trial. Because of the process's secrecy, this sort of stuff is allowed to persist.
The question is: would the vote be different if the vote was public? They would still be the only ones able to vote. By the way they behaved, they show they have no respect for abc players (or any arma player for that matter). So why would they care if you don't like their vote?
I might be wrong, but I don't think a non-anonymous vote would make a big difference. And that's something that obviously was taken in account when doing the rules. "All Team Leaders must be included, even if one of them is accused of committing an offense. "
-
- Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 2003
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:02 pm
- Location: paris
- Contact:
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
The way I see it, the drawbacks of these two methods of conducting the vote can be summarized to:
Either it is all slightly difficult for one person to make it verifiable, and for others to verify it,
Or, you can make it easy for everyone to verify that everyone conformed to the dominant opinion from before the vote.
My opinion therefore is that the vote should remain anonymous, and that the procedure for verifying it is made more apparent to the voters and readers with more than a wiki link. Do note that I am only an outside observer in this matter.
Either it is all slightly difficult for one person to make it verifiable, and for others to verify it,
Or, you can make it easy for everyone to verify that everyone conformed to the dominant opinion from before the vote.
My opinion therefore is that the vote should remain anonymous, and that the procedure for verifying it is made more apparent to the voters and readers with more than a wiki link. Do note that I am only an outside observer in this matter.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
Good ideas are good no matter who says them.epsy wrote:Do note that I am only an outside observer in this matter.
I am on the fence with this one. My personality allows me to stand up and speak my mind no matter how unpopular my opinion, plus I have no problem taking action when needed. A public vote suits me. However, most people are not me. This is a small community with surprisingly big politics. If we can make people more comfortable and still allow justice to prevail then anonymous voting might be the best practice.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
One thing I consider obvious is that the accused players should never vote in their own trial.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
Maybe have 2 voting booths. One for the public to voice their opinion and Another for server admins/Authorities to voice their opinions. Ultimately the Authorities would have the final say?
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
There also needs to be a list of the people who voted so the person conducting the voting can't add votes that came from no one.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
Is there any objection to the way this most recent vote regarding Mr and Tak was handled? I would like to pen this into the rules. Let's try to figure this out over the next week so we can move on. We are all a little tired of this I am sure.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
Other than the warning system itself, I like the way this was run.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
I agree with Owned, I like the way it was run, except for the warning system, which seems a little odd. I think that "warning" is not the best word to describe what it is. I mean, three warnings for one offence? That doesn't sound right. Maybe something like "punishment points" or similar would be better?
Playing since December 2006
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
considering the events of the violation caused both our listed team leaders to be kicked or leave the team, ABC had no vote in this trial. Compguygene listed who voted, but he should also have listed the people who didn't vote. There should be a recourse taken to fix that, and I think the verdict in the trial is premature. Who knows what other mistakes were made?
I also think trialled players should be suspended from all competitions until their trial is over. It's weird to have people who might end up being banned a significant amount of time being able to participate while their punishment is decided upon. Suspending them during the course of the trial creates an incentive for them to cooperate fully.
I also think trialled players should be suspended from all competitions until their trial is over. It's weird to have people who might end up being banned a significant amount of time being able to participate while their punishment is decided upon. Suspending them during the course of the trial creates an incentive for them to cooperate fully.
- kyle
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1876
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
- Contact:
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
the ladle does not govern all tournaments. We are ditching the warning system for a how many ladle should they be suspended for system for the future. There should be a list of players that the vote was sent out to, which has been added as a requirement for future. A week to vote still should be an ample amount of time, and that length of time was given.
Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion
I agree and would be up for rewording the policy to say something like "...Team Leaders or other representative (if post-Ladle fallout causes Team Leader(s) to become unavailable). Arrangements should be made between the team and Ladle Enthusiast." This would allow the unrepresented to have their say. Speaking of which, would abc like to tack on their vote to the current trial thread? Would it make a significant difference in the results? (I know you don't mind publicly stating your vote.) Also, it is not too late to start the trial over. We should do our best to come to an agreement as soon as possible so we can move past this situation.blondie wrote:There should be a recourse taken to fix that, and I think the verdict in the trial is premature. Who knows what other mistakes were made?