*Establishment of a Voting Procedure - Please read & discuss

[Q. T. Quazar]

This is not a vote but (hopefully) a discussion on a forthcoming vote.


I think procedures for calling a vote at MARP should be finalized and written into the rules page. As this is a delicate topic and one which i have not personally handled well in the past, I'm going to try and explain each step of my reasoning.

1.

1a) All MARPers recognized as regular members of the community have the right to propose/request a vote, and to later vote in that vote.

1b) MARPers do NOT have the right to POST a vote. This will be done by a new voting procedure:

2. (procedure)

MARPer wishing to call a vote submits the vote topic and potential choices to the Rules Coordinator or Regulation Coordinator, or, in the case both are inactive at the moment, to an Editor (but only in the case both RCs are inactive)

The RC in question organizes this/these request(s) (if more than one is received on the same issue) and then presents topics to the Editor group, including RC in voting/discussion, who discuss 'suitability' of the vote and its contents under the following criteria:

i) Are all viable community options in the vote present and fairly and accurately represented in this vote? --this likely should have been polled or taken place with discussion in the community before going to vote, much as we do now.
(there was a very obvious failure/bias with this in the final leaderboard vote at MARP, where the *final* vote options were neither balanced nor representative of the discussion that had occurred at MARP)

ii) Are the options clearly presented in readable, clear English?
(while MARP is an international community, the main language of discussion is English, and when a vote is posted, it's important that each point be as clear as possible to as many players as possible. that means fixing up ESL mistakes that might cause contextual confusion on the actual vote)

iii) Is the vote necessary or appropriate at the current time?
(to prevent revotes or repolling on things that have been suitably decided by the community, and to make sure all settings, switches, and miscellanea are in order before a decision is made. multiple votes and options made a mess of the PC_10 debate well before Tommi and I started to fight. all the 'ducks' need to be in a row before *any* vote is called.)


If the Editors and RC determine that the vote is fine as presented, it returns to the RC who posts it as is.

If the Editors and RC determine that options are missing or superfluous, they add them or remove them as necessary, then the vote is sent back to the RC for posting.

If the vote itself is problematic, then it is rejected with a public explanation posted by the RC. Discussion can then continue on the boards with how to restructure the vote, if possible.

This way, all votes go through a consistent process of scrutiny and improvement, and are presented in a consistent way to the community by the person at MARP whose job most directly concerns this area. (and as this position is now elected, rather than appointed (or created, as it was at the time, by me)) there shouldn't be any accusations of the RC being undemocratic. The one-point-access system ensures consistency and fairness to everyone.


Finally, there should probably be a minimum quorum for the vote but i have no idea how large that should be.



now, regarding the establishment of this procedure, i want to make a few notes.

this is not being proposed in order to concentrate 'power' in the hands of the 'elite.' this is being done as a streamlining process to improve fairness and democracy at MARP. otherwise, you get votes of the type a) Should I be allowed to kill my neighbor or b) Should I only be allowed to seriously maim my neighbor -- inherently structurally flawed, or that don't represent the larger interests, or that would do things that cause problems for the entire community. obviously we would not call such a vote, but it is indicative of the kind of logical fallacies that have sprung up again and again in votes at MARP.

this will also, hopefully, prevent some of the bad blood that has repeatedly come up with the voting procedures. obviously, i have personal experience here, in particular with PhL and TJT.

***I apologize to both of these players for my lack of professionalism on the message boards. I want to end all grudges here and now, if possible.***

I was accused, in both cases, of power tripping and being overly literal in my interpretation of the rules, and there is some fairness to both those accusations. At the same time, as RC, I was also trying to stop votes that I saw, for different reasons, as inherently flawed. it is my hope that the establishment of the above procedure, or something close to it, will stop these kinds of problems before they happen and will lead to an improvement in both the community and the message boards in general.

[Chad]

yeah with the lack of hasty application of a seemingly good poll about archiving gambling games, I think there should be some poll rules in place.

I think everyone should be allowed to start a poll, and you shouldn't need to ask the RC for permission to start a poll, Or I think the RC permission can be asked after the poll has started or even ended. There should also be rules for controversial polls, so they can be overturned if the democracy says so later on with slightly (but not overly so) restricted rules for over-ruling.

I disagree with clear English being required, a lot of us speak different languages and marp should not discriminate against someone because their grammar is a little off from a translator perspective when they aren't fluent in english. Certainly it would be convenient to have English the main language but it should not be required, since translators are easily available.

[The TJT]

yeah with the lack of hasty application of a seemingly good poll about archiving gambling games, I think there should be some poll rules in place.

Maybe. Not to the extent that QT suggested though. Let's keep it more simple.

I think everyone should be allowed to start a poll, and you shouldn't need to ask the RC for permission to start a poll,

I kind of disagree with that, Chad.

I think that under my reign of terror as Regulation Coordinator I was the only one able to make polls, if I recall correctly...But anyone was able to start a discussion which might eventually lead to a poll. However I tried to avoid polls and reach agreement through discussion - which is faster and better.

The reason why I disagree with anyone making a poll is that people can make quite silly(for the lack of better word) polls, and more importantly biased poll options - results of the poll often depend on how the question is asked...what are the poll options like.

...To avoid such sort of improper polling I think it's better that a non-partisan mediator, which would be Regulation Coordinator at MARP, would make the final poll - after the discussion of course.

I think this has been the custom here during last years.

Anyway, this is all rather academic since we haven't had fiery fights here for a while and people do agree about things and get along rather well. Polls have rarely been necessary.

Happy gaming

[Chad]

My effort was trying to let people just generate their own polls but the polls would not be official until the RC put the RC stamp on them. Glad were all in for some healthy and not harmful discussion :)

[Q. T. Quazar]

yeah, perhaps skito phrased that better. i didn't mean to imply that everything has to be voted on--that seems inefficient when things can more quickly be worked out on the board, which i agree, is preferable. i just meant that when things reach a point where they need to go to vote, it would be nice to have a formalized procedure to make sure the vote gets done smoothly and is implemented in a punctual and binding way.

i KNEW someone was going to read the English thing as discrimination but that's not the intent. the intent is to have an English reader read and edit it so that it can be clear to the *widest* amount of players possible, since English is being used as a lingua franca at MARP. the point is not to limit who can create the vote, but to be sure that whoever makes it, it will end up in a format that everyone can understand without the 'option confusion' we have seen in some polls.

basically, the idea is:

community input/discussion-->RC (TJT, currently) amalgamates (in case of more than one idea/proposal from players or a partisan issue)-->RC+Editors validate it-->RC posts and controls-->community decides. then an editor, Zwaxy, scripter, whatever implements.

most of the work and control here lies with the RC so that things get done in an organized manner.

[Phil Lamat]

I agree on TJT and Chad on this.
No way to make things too strict

RC (TJT, currently)

Some pages needs update.
The RC

[***PL***]

I agree on TJT and Chad on this.
Some pages needs update.
The RC

I believe this is the page that must be updated...

http://replay.marpirc.net/rules/memberrights.htm


Report this post

[Q. T. Quazar]

*sigh*

it's not much use if no-one knows it's THERE. no-one else even alluded to that page in the above posts.

now i feel dumb for even posting this in the first place.

on that note, some serious redesign needs to be done on first entering or on re-entering MARP, so that players can find out these things. i think the pages need to be streamlined and probably located under a new index or nexus page. current navigation for that stuff is split between stuff on the top hitbox, stuff in the scrollbar, and stuff that's, for all intents and purposes, essentially hidden. i've been gone 7 years and the layout of MARP's information is more confusing than ever.

as for the RC, i meant Rules Coordinator, which I though Tommi was, not Regulation Coordinator, which I thought Pat was. but maybe I'm confused on that poinnt too (and it's my own damn fault too for creating a post with the same initials)

maybe we should just call the RulesCo the Referee or Umpire instead? Or lawmaker? Or Hammer of Justice?

[***PL***]

Welcome back, QT!

A lot has changed over the years! There was never a rules coordinator, although I helped compile the first revision and posted it on the site. I suppose it would be the Editors responsibility now to update them.

Credit for writing the Election Voting procedures goes to Gameboy9. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, there are a few key pages that are basically "orphaned" and not connected to any links from the main website. The only way to access is through links posted on the forums. Late in the year Zhorik runs the MARP election for all the various positions. The voting procedures and all the "official" MARP positions are listed here...
http://marp.retrogames.com/rules/election.htm

Phil Lamat is the RC (Regulation Coordinator). Here are all the current MARP "staff assignments" based on the Election Results.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14606&start=0&hilit ... on+results

[gameboy9]

You rang?

OK, I really don't say much here... mainly because I'm exiled. But since Pat said my name, I guess I should say something. The political structure that I came up with many years ago is now flawed. It might have worked back then... it doesn't work now. Yes, there were reasons I came up with the rules that I did, and that was mainly so the power was shared out, but I think these rules need to be vastly improved now.

Yes, I may have exiled myself... but I still watch the site from afar. And, perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like it's not doing very well. Part of this is my responsibility, because I came up with the political structure that I did. Some of you would like me to come back to help run the site again. To that, I will say that I'm flattered and honored. However, I'm sure many of you don't want me back at all, and this is 100% understandable. I've done a number of terrible things, and I can understand that some of those things aren't forgivable. In addition, I enjoy running HARP and, while it isn't the most successful site in the world, I would like to continue doing solely those responsibilities.

Now that I have said all of this, I am very pleased that QT is taking the initiative to improve this site once again. I think he can become a spectacular leader at MARP and make the site awesome once again. I think he can improve the way regulation play works... I think he might be able to start a Wiki, or something else down these lines, where all of these rules can reside in a linkable fashion, and I think he can find a way to get the MAME Championships working again. I think a lot of you should take his suggestions very seriously. I personally feel that he should soon become 2nd in command, just as I was many years ago.

If you need any advisement, let me know. Good luck to you all.

[The TJT]

Hi gb9. I hope your post was meant as satire...

[gameboy9]

*chuckle*... well, Tommi... it's clear you're looking at the past and think it's the future. Which I can understand. I'm looking strictly at the future. Let's just say I've been pretty good at foreseeing the future here. And I'll just keep it at that.

[Q. T. Quazar]

Thank you for the welcome back, and the quick guide, Pat Never got a chance to congratulate you on the Frogger coup. Felicitations!

A lot has changed over the years! There was never a rules coordinator, although I helped compile the first revision and posted it on the site. I suppose it would be the Editors responsibility now to update them.

Ummm... I was the Rules Coordinator (the first) and I wrote the Rules page (i know for a fact because a lot of it comes from specific things veterans like BeeJay and JoustGod had said to me, in earlier discussions), as well as the banned techniques (which i think i compiled and rewrote from various materials, some of which were already on site). It's even in the staff listing. I submitted them to all Editors, Zwaxy, and a number of people in #marp at the time for review (Editors, at the time, I think were just you, me and gb9--maybe skito). you definitely posted them, because i didn't have HTML access at the time Or are you referring specifically to the 'election rules'?

The political structure that I came up with many years ago is now flawed. It might have worked back then... it doesn't work now. Yes, there were reasons I came up with the rules that I did, and that was mainly so the power was shared out, but I think these rules need to be vastly improved now.

gb9... at some point we have to talk about '01 and BenJos and you and I. you remember the political structure issue--well, that debate was a source of bad blood. The HARP organization and how you talk about it is exactly what I had been talking about for MARP structure back then. I don't want to fall into that pit of snakes again and I really like what you've done with HARP. thank you very much for your kind words.

Hi gb9. I hope your post was meant as satire...

and Tommi, can we just let it go? i obviously stepped over the line with the confirmer thing and i got rebuked for it at the time. i even posted the letter Zwaxy sent me--he pulled ALL rights for ALL editors while things were sorted out, because the confirmer item was one item in a much larger argument about the direction, structure, and roles of MARP. if I made missteps, they generally led to better procedures at MARP before long (like how the 3 strikes rule evolved, for instance). i overstepped my authority, and was checked. it's not some personal vendetta.

i mean--look at your history of posts. you were demonstrably *wrong* about the PC-10 votes issue--the whole source of the fight--everything i talked about in terms of requirements and structure for a vote and ability to cancel a vote were all codified at MARP eventually--and i've never asked you to apologize for blowing up over that, or swearing at me on the boards, or telling players i had been 'fired'. i was trying to cancel a vote that was poorly structured and ill-timed--exactly what the RC can now do anyway. so what are you still going on about? what are you still mad about? it's done with. as gb9 said, it's history.

i have no intention of taking on gb9's old role as assistant page maintainer--he did more work than anyone else when i was an Editor--more work than most MARPers know--and at that time, ALL the editors were doing a lot of work. he was just posting some kind words here, that's all.

Q.T.Quazar


btw, for the record... I was invited to be an Editor at the start (i was the 3rd) because gb9 and I shared a vision for how we could develop the site as well as eliminate the problems that were occurring with submissions that were causing old players to leave. skito came on very soon after and then made huge contributions on the technical side. i *created* the RC (or RRC, properly) position with the purpose of cleaning up the site once we had the tools in place, then developing consistent rules, and then establishing policy and procedures. and by Fall of '01, most of the large issues at MARP had been resolved. even if gb9 and i didn't see eye-to-eye at the end, we are still very respectful of each other's efforts and I think he is doing an awesome thing at HARP, which I want to be a part of, and I will be helping him as i can.

[Q. T. Quazar]

Here, for the record, I will put it in plain sight.

I apologize to you, Tommi Tiihonen, for stripping you of your confirmer status when I was RRC. It was not my call to make and I was out-of-line in doing so. I'm sorry if it made you in any way enjoy MARP less or left you with negative feelings about myself or the Editors in general.

[The TJT]

No problem. It's been a long time and I'm almost over it now. Heheh.

I just thought GB9's post was somewhat questionable on some points...For example suggesting giving 2nd in command to someone who pops up after long absence was a bit off in principle wouldn't you agree. No offense to anyone.

Anyways, welcome back to MARP QT. Appears that you still have around 50 first places which is rather impressive after such a long absence...or even without one.

Cheers,
TJT