Unofficial Debate: Appointment Panels

[IdioC]

Returning to topic... A few points for consideration.

Points made by moderators regarding unforseeable absences have to be borne in mind, Siggon. I don't think the appointment process will be able to overcome that. Illness, other real-life crises or even a failure of the moderator's internet connection can prevent someone fulfilling their duties. Ultimately, they are volunteers and are sacrificing time for the good (if they're doing it right) of the game.

---

That we have 21 responses to a poll on the forum helps point out the size of the active community but the community size does ebb and flow, with summer and other traditional western holidays being a low time. This raises a few issues:
*It might be more worthwhile to consider a proportion of a poll response for a decision/appointment that everyone agrees on, rather than a fixed number, but then the number on each faction's "board" will flow with the seasons. This enforced dropping and rehiring, however, could result in a turnover of fresh ideas (or the disenfranchised switching factions with insider info if they get dropped).
*If a fixed number is the way forward in your opinion, do you take the summer lower bound or the spring/autumn higher bound to base your panel size upon?
*If an average of the above is preferred, how do you track it with the change in the community between years to ensure your panel is suitable representative?

---

Dynastia's test case suggestion is a good suggestion, but I feel to do it now would be too soon. More time is needed to formulate an idea before it gets an alpha test.

It needs more constructive criticism to strengthen itself, but also take it on board in the right way then adapt the proposal to address the criticism.

[Siggon Kristov]

When I said that this was for the discussion of the idea, it wasn't meant to be a one-sided soapbox for them.

disagreement with the ideas discussed is still a comment relevant to the topic

My apologies, let me explain further...

- Most of the critics of "the panel idea" complain about factions, despite the fact that not all suggestions involved factions.
- Others would just drop in "it's stupid, blah blah blah" and give no reason in that blah blah blah, unless they were referring strictly to my proposal (while ignoring ALL the others).
- Some say it's not worth discussing, and come here protesting the existence of the thread; if it's not worth discussing, why are they discussing it too?
- Some critics of "the panel idea" complain about it having 9 members, despite the fact that I was the only person who proposed 9, and smaller numbers have been proposed.

So these people aren't reading the whole thread, or all the suggestions. They're singling out my proposal as the entire panel idea, and bashing "the panel idea" based only on what I say when others have said things.

It needs more constructive criticism to strengthen itself, but also take it on board in the right way then adapt the proposal to address the criticism.

My proposal has been criticized, and:
- some players propose alternative ideas
- some players oppose "the (entire) panel idea" based only on my proposals (even though details of my proposal can be changed, while keeping the idea of a panel)

Points made by moderators regarding unforseeable absences have to be borne in mind, Siggon. I don't think the appointment process will be able to overcome that. Illness, other real-life crises or even a failure of the moderator's internet connection can prevent someone fulfilling their duties. Ultimately, they are volunteers and are sacrificing time for the good (if they're doing it right) of the game.

The discussion with Farsun had nothing to do with this thread, or the panel, really.
It was more of Farsun saying mods know best and that normal players shouldn't have any say in who becomes a mod, and implying that moderation shouldn't be held answerable to the players at the end of the day.
I was referring to a specific case where Vald, a moderator (Farsun says moderators know best), hired another moderator named "Holdit" - Holdit never did anything. Holdit was a bad choice (Farsun says moderators know best). After, he eventually hired Rapax, and moderation inactivity still reached 4 or more days at a time (despite the point of an extra moderator being to reduce inactivity, but hey, Farsun says moderators know best). The community had to pressure him to hire another moderator.

--

*It might be more worthwhile to consider a proportion of a poll response for a decision/appointment that everyone agrees on, rather than a fixed number, but then the number on each faction's "board" will flow with the seasons. This enforced dropping and rehiring, however, could result in a turnover of fresh ideas (or the disenfranchised switching factions with insider info if they get dropped).

I'm not understanding the exact point here, believing it could be either of 2 (different) things. Could you elaborate?
From the underlined part, if I'm understanding, it depends on the size of the panel (which would change too). For example, a 9-member panel would consider 5 votes to be a majority and 6 to be a supermajority. A 5-member panel would consider 3 to be a majority.

*If a fixed number is the way forward in your opinion, do you take the summer lower bound or the spring/autumn higher bound to base your panel size upon?

If there are going to be factions, it depends on the number of those. (The size of the panel could change if the panel is being based on factions.)
If there aren't going to be factions, I think it can be kept as a 5-member panel.

*If an average of the above is preferred, how do you track it with the change in the community between years to ensure your panel is suitable representative?

If we're going to do it by factions... Players, who are more liberal than the ATR, only showed up recently. Before the ATR or IML were major factions themselves (as players' OOC affiliations during big falling outs), there were other eras of different factions, catparty says (Kennedy, NWO, etc.). I guess it would be up to a player jumping up about why he doesn't like whichever factions, and proposing (along with other players who share the same OOC views and possibly IC interests) a set of stances as his own, that separates him from whatever stances are officiated for the other factions.
If we're not doing it by factions, I think 5-members is good enough (regardless of whatever size the community will reach any time soon).

[Dynastia]

Dynastia's test case suggestion is a good suggestion, but I feel to do it now would be too soon. More time is needed to formulate an idea before it gets an alpha test.

I agree with this, but unfortunately I have to announce that I'm withdrawing my offer to present a real and genuine issue for the mock-panel to rule on. The dispute I had in mind between me and Zanz is now outdated, as it has been amicably and maturely reconciled without the need for outside intervention. The other ongoing disputes on the forum seem to be fairly heated from one side or the other, and would only serve to exacerbate issues if we let a non-official test panel preside over them.

When the mock-panel is ready to convene I might be able to identify and present another real-but-unimportant issue for them to rule on, but no promises there ; people seem to be getting very impassioned over the most minor of incidents of late. If nothing suitable presents itself, I could always invent a fictional case to put to them, or better yet stage a brief and fake flame-war with somebody who I can trust not to get obsessively upset over a few harmless and insincere insults.

Let me know whenever you guys are ready, and I'll make a thread calling Polites a big mean poopyhead or something and you can rule on what to do about it.

[EEL123]

Just write up a hypothetical. No need to get a real case or even to RP a fake case with Polites (the "poopyhead").

[Imperial Dark Rome]

Let me know whenever you guys are ready, and I'll make a thread calling Polites a big mean poopyhead or something and you can rule on what to do about it.

I think Siggon said no earlier than august 23. I'm good to go anytime, if I'm on the mock-panel or if you need someone for your target practice I can do that as well. I'm like a rock, man. Insults and jokes of bad taste don't bother me at all...

Panel Power!!!

[Polites]

Let me know whenever you guys are ready, and I'll make a thread calling Polites a big mean poopyhead or something and you can rule on what to do about it.

Soiling my good name in this manner is unacceptable. I will not stand here and be insulted just for a mock panel idea to be tested out, even if it is purely in jest. Already people are referring to me as "the poopyhead", which I find demeaning and disgusting. I call for the judgement of a simulated panel to deal with this issue.

[Siggon Kristov]

Dynastia's test case suggestion is a good suggestion, but I feel to do it now would be too soon. More time is needed to formulate an idea before it gets an alpha test.

I agree with this, but unfortunately I have to announce that I'm withdrawing my offer to present a real and genuine issue for the mock-panel to rule on. The dispute I had in mind between me and Zanz is now outdated, as it has been amicably and maturely reconciled without the need for outside intervention. The other ongoing disputes on the forum seem to be fairly heated from one side or the other, and would only serve to exacerbate issues if we let a non-official test panel preside over them.

I call for the judgement of a simulated panel to deal with this issue.

The panel would be for disputes involving moderators.
If a moderator makes a ruling that a player disagrees with, it becomes a dispute between the player and the moderator; it is then that the player asks the panel for an appeal.

[IdioC]

I have just cut Dynastia and Polites' silly posts into a little Novella in Off-Topic, where the Nuremberg trials were obviously called to trade playground insults between Axis and Allies*

Dynastia and Polites: I said earlier that off topic remarks would warrant a warning from an aforementioned point. You both now have an warning.
Polites, that is your second. Tread very carefully.


*At least, I think that's what History GCSE teaches nowadays.

[Fred]

Lets try to get things back on topic.

I'm sorry, catparty, and I'm not labelling you specifically, but this was the rallying cry that was raised last time an unpopular/controversial change to the game was forced through. Let's get back to doing what I want. Then it changes to "It's too late now". So you'll have to excuse me if I'm sceptical for this reason.

My other reason is simply that I have yet to find a committee which was not open to manipulation. The more members, the more stalling, sidetracking, backbiting, politicking, gossiping is possible.

There is also a question of enforcement. A moderator could quite easily turn round and say 'no' - with the support of his colleagues, or on his own - unless the panel was also composed of moderators.

And perhaps we need a nine-member panel to appeal the decisions of ther panel? Perhaps we should have a High Panel of Appeal, too, to be on the safe side?

Half the trouble, it seems to me, is the habit of a lot of players - myself included - of taking this game far, far too seriously. While that happens, people will always play the system, no matter how you try to rig it against this. That doesn't mean that no reform is needed, but it does mean that the reform needs to be careful, and to avoid the introduction of more complexity, where possible. More complexity mens more loopholes.

[Siggon Kristov]

My other reason is simply that I have yet to find a committee which was not open to manipulation.

That was the point of the faction idea. I couldn't expect any member of the panel to be impartial. My best hope was to balance it among the apparent partialities.

The more members, the more stalling, sidetracking, backbiting, politicking, gossiping is possible.

In the end, it's a Yes/No vote: Should this person be a mod? Does this case deserve an appeal?
All the talking would be unnecessary, unless 1 person is undecided and there are even Yes/No votes apart from that 1 person. This, I believe, is unlikely to happen.