I was spending some more time about the "how to vote to get a convincing result", and I did not come to a conclusion on what is better:
Option 1: Every Admin must vote "yes" / "no"
Option 2: Every Admin must vote, but there is a "neutral" option in addition to "yes" / "no" (so we would always have 8 people who gave their opinion)
Option 3: Not every Admin must vote (can result in small voting numbers and therefore influence the outcome; On the other side Admins could stay out of a vote when they feel they are involved too heavily)
I couldn't make up my mind on what is best.
I am leaning to #1, as it creates a clean outcome with a maximum of voices.
If one adds "in dubio pro reo" (when there is doubt, judge in favour of the accused), this should create better results, especially when coupled with unanimous decisions (which would result in few bans, only of the worst offenders, after quite some discussion), or a 2/3 majority.
//I'll also edit it into my 1st page post, as this stupid derail discussion buries everything that could lead to progress and end this silly status. Thank you (irony) to all those who of course could not keep their irrelevant opinion to themselves and had to dump it all over a thread that was looking for suggestions for a specific problem.
Uhh, I don't know frankly what to say here, buut...
It boils down to how much constructive pool you bring to the community as a person , how long you've been on the entire (forum and/or in-game), and the rate of conduct (sanctions vs. positive attitude), and the non-centered thought of being on both all sides to get a good "in their shoes" policy.
I think the Admins as whole, I mean those who past present and future administrators still have a detrimental impact on gameplay. That being said,
the continuation of being blasted with sanctions that have no course to explanation either publicly or in the most remote way. As a community of
gamers; Admins, Mods/Devs, and those who press the issue of the future lore of the 'good play' should be not be grieved by those outsiders who
simply could destroy a day's worth of fun. I won't name names however I stress the importance to separate ill intention with the proceed of common sense.
The only way to ban someone from the community is not attacking their proprietary... but by affirming them to "cool off" and make your way back in at ground zero. Everything starts in small inclinations. Then overall you realize it's actually a "big step".
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
Quote:* Nodoka Hanamura is all about that SSH life
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy - from our odyssey into Hell, we have returned with a gift."
So, to the topic then. How's it supposed to work that banning people can just be done when the vote on it wasn't a majority-vote but an unanimous one?
So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
A mighty fine system.
Aside from that, which you could argue now that nobody outside of the staff should know what's voted on (sure), the current set of rules and regulations may need an overhaul (again). But I'd rather not have a certain thread opener involved in this.
(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So, to the topic then. How's it supposed to work that banning people can just be done when the vote on it wasn't a majority-vote but an unanimous one?
So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
A mighty fine system.
Compromise is the heart of negotiation. Unless most of the admins can agree that ban-by-vote is a pants-on-head stupid system, unanimous vote is a vaguely-acceptable alternative. Still wide open to social engineering-based abuse, but that's the problem with vote councils in general.
Howard Williams - CEO, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Just try and stop us"
Caroline Convair - General Secretary, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Please excuse the CEO"
(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So, to the topic then. How's it supposed to work that banning people can just be done when the vote on it wasn't a majority-vote but an unanimous one?
So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
A mighty fine system.
Compromise is the heart of negotiation. Unless most of the admins can agree that ban-by-vote is a pants-on-head stupid system, unanimous vote is a vaguely-acceptable alternative. Still wide open to social engineering-based abuse, but that's the problem with vote councils in general.
This is basically the idea behind Garrett's original post (I think). Those of you who still seem confused, take note of this explanation.
You say you don't have personal grudges with anyone, yet I'm still curious what your reasons are to justify the banning of those six. You seemed to be quite eager to defend the decision of the Admin Team even though it was carried out opposite to a proposal you are now agreeing with. May you answer those queries of me in an other thread or in PM, this thread suffered more derails than should have.
I fully agree with both the proposal and the suggested retroactive application of it on the case of the recently banned half dozen people. Many believe the current dev strike is detrimental to the server and the mod more than anything else. I believe a seemingly inconsistent, irresponsible, dangerously unpredictable, and occasionally less communicative than preferable Administration Team is at least as much detrimental to the community if not more. I'd prefer a Staff I can trust over one I have to fear.
Now your derailing it, some people only have two brain cells. Maybe they can get together and get back on topic.##
(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So, to the topic then. How's it supposed to work that banning people can just be done when the vote on it wasn't a majority-vote but an unanimous one?
So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
A mighty fine system.
Compromise is the heart of negotiation. Unless most of the admins can agree that ban-by-vote is a pants-on-head stupid system, unanimous vote is a vaguely-acceptable alternative. Still wide open to social engineering-based abuse, but that's the problem with vote councils in general.
Would you prefer me alone to decide on your fate without discussing it with others and then running it through a process that is likely not perfect, but at least ensures some fairness? Our would you prefer a community vote, which will turn out based on how many skype friends you have and how famous you are?
Im certain that this would make a lot of people sad, many more than the process we use now.
See Divines points on why unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, you essentially backed his post up even further.
Anyway imho the best of the systems is the currently inplace, meaning the majority wins.
(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
This is a very real and accurate point
Remember Admins are also persons who interact with the players and play with their own chars involved in factions, so they estabilish bonds. Now take their place and one of your player friends who you usually play on a regular basis is going on a vote what would you do?
That's the problem with unanimous vote.
For some reason court juris are invetigated before to see if they have any ties to the accused.
(07-21-2016, 10:20 AM)Jansen Wrote: [...]a process that is likely not perfect, but at least ensures some fairness?
Another admittance that the system/proceeding was flawed. It's coming up in nearly every statement of the staff when it comes to the bans, and in every 1on1 talk. Yes, it is "not perfect". It is a bad way of doing it, as it threatens literally everybody, even those with white vests with a surprising insta-ban and thus kills the willingness to invest time, effort and creativity into the game.
If something is flawed, please work on fixing it, especially if the flawed execution has unforeseen negative consequences.
Quote:[...]would you prefer a community vote, which will turn out based on how many skype friends you have and how famous you are?
Not an option, and if it was meant to be taken seriously, I would dare say that this is not the place and time for sarcasm.
Quote:[...]unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, [...].
Former admin teams went with unanimous vote system and there were bans. However, it took some time to convince some staffers, and sometimes a final, very clear warning had to be given, and once that final warning was not working out, the unanimous vote was easy to get.
So, yes. It can work. But it takes effort and time from the side of the staff. It demands conversation about the case, discussion and it will end in fewer people being banned after an assessment process in which snapshot decisions are not an issue any more.
Let's step back for a moment... I guess, this is exactly what would have been a good outcome, wouldn't it?
Quote:[...]unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, [...].
Quote:[...]community vote[...]
Between these extremes, the 2/3 majority vote that I mentioned already comes as the natural option.
