charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata process

how to involve the player base in the process of issuing errata on cards/rules?

Poll ended at Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:33 pm

consentive vote by the player base is needed BEFORE any errata process gets started
0
No votes
affirmative vote by the player base is needed in order of making any errata effective
4
67%
both, a consentive AND an affirmative vote by the player base is needed
0
No votes
nothing at all is needed
2
33%
 
Total votes: 6

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata process

Post by thorondor » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:33 pm

how to involve the player base in the process of issuing errata on cards/rules?
this poll runs for 7 days from now on.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:49 pm

I believe that a small body is best for creating errata, while ratification by the larger community is best for not alienating them.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by marcos » Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:07 pm

I agree with ben

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:04 pm

isn't consent and affirmation the same thing though?

I would opt for voting a proposal out. CoE proposes the erratum, if there is no mobilized opposition within a fixed period of time after the proposal, it stands and is adopted.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Jose-san » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:44 am

I still don't like the a idea of a referendum to validate each errata. Voted "nothing at all".

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by thorondor » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:23 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:isn't consent and affirmation the same thing though?
i used those terms because someone else used them in this context ;-)
CoE proposes the erratum, if there is no mobilized opposition within a fixed period of time after the proposal, it stands and is adopted.
exactly how it could (and imo should) be done!

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:12 pm

Well I would vote for that, if it were possible!
Can the poll be amended? hmm, guess not. Then run a new poll better.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed May 04, 2011 5:09 pm

Was this poll also open to non-CoE members? Cause if the majority of CoE votes for option b, it seems we can dispense with the effort for a new charter.

I would propose to simply vote openly on these CoE-only issues, each CoE member should be able to explain him/herself anyway, and there is no need for anonimity. Also it gives us a way to check who hasn't voted yet :wink:

Just to be clear, option B, which now has 4 votes, reflects the power as granted by the current charter: CoE makes an erratum, which will only be validated if 2/3 of the Silent Tower list votes in favor.

Of course the ST list could be replaced by something which reflects better the active player base. Still, to me it seems clear that needing active affirmation will mean nothing will happen, as too many people seem to be rather dormant players. Hence my choice for dissent, as those who oppose (enough) will always take action, whereas those who approve will not.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu May 05, 2011 1:20 pm

I understood the affirmative vote by the player base as simply getting more people to say "yes" than "no" if the question's thrown out there. In other words, if only three people vote, it's enough if two of them say "yes."

And if only three people care enough to vote, those are probably the three people whose opinions should most concern us. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by thorondor » Sun May 15, 2011 7:11 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: I would propose to simply vote openly on these CoE-only issues, each CoE member should be able to explain him/herself anyway, and there is no need for anonimity. Also it gives us a way to check who hasn't voted yet :wink:
agree! i iwll send out in invitation to the fellowship ...
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Just to be clear, option B, which now has 4 votes, reflects the power as granted by the current charter: CoE makes an erratum, which will only be validated if 2/3 of the Silent Tower list votes in favor.
true, but is there still an acitv Siltent Tower list? i doubt every COE member does even know about the existence of such a list.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Of course the ST list could be replaced by something which reflects better the active player base. Still, to me it seems clear that needing active affirmation will mean nothing will happen, as too many people seem to be rather dormant players. Hence my choice for dissent, as those who oppose (enough) will always take action, whereas those who approve will not.
could be, still thats exactly the point why i prefer having it: people need to have the chance to utter their voice. if they dont, they cant complain later (of course some will, but their justification is weakened a lot).

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by thorondor » Sun May 15, 2011 7:26 am

obviously i was one of the "affirmative vote by the player base is needed in order of making any errata effective" voters

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Shapeshifter » Sun May 15, 2011 8:37 am

I voted for affirmative vote by the player base is needed in order of making any errata effective. At least those players of the player base who care about the things we are doing here should have a chance to approve or disapprove. IMO the best way to include the player base is via the national councils spokesmen (who should each represent their council's common opinion of course) and not the Silent Tower mailing list.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by marcos » Sun May 15, 2011 4:40 pm

I agree with karsten

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Tue May 24, 2011 5:50 pm

the whole issue about voting procedures might not be clear to all, therefore I would like to present a simple overview of the options and add some considerations.

In my opinion, we need to balance fairness and practicality, estimating the likely turnout for a ratification vote by the active community. As far as I can see, no such vote has ever been cast (which tells us something).
consent: requiring a number or percentage of yea's
dissent: requiring a number or percentage of nay's
closed vote: the number of constituents (voters) is fixed
open vote: the number of constituents is not fixed

this leaves us with these possibilities:
A. open end consent/dissent: ratification needs a percentage of all cast votes to be yea's/nay's
this would seem fair, but also not very practical, as we have every indication to believe the turnout will be low, greatly in favour of nay-sayers in general (regardless the content of the proposal). Furthermore it doesn't determine the player base, giving us still no indication of how widely the proposal is supported.

B. closed end consent: ratification needs a fixed number of yay's
this would seem most fair of all options, and it is indeed the procedure according to the current charter, but it is also most impractical, and has, probably for this reason, never happened before.

C. closed end dissent: ratification pending a fixed number of nay's
this would seem most practical to the CoE, but if the turnout is very low it might be regarded as unfair, as the yay's might be less prominent than the nay's and still the proposal will stand.

It is my experience as a researcher of political siences that those who agree are often less inclined to express their opinion. Referenda posing yea/nay questions tend to end up in favour of the nay's (regardless the subject). As Ben says, only those who make the effort to actually respond are worth listening too. Well that might be, but it might also result to nothing then, the natural state of things/people is conservative.

My choice would be option C: Widely publicise the CoE intend and procedure, fix a number of voters, and see whoever is against CoE proposals. This will give us most definite information in the end about what the active community deems ok for change and what not.

Nb. of course there are also other possibilities that do not depend on a vote by the community at all. That would on the one hand veil the shame of failing democratic processes, but on the other hand obscure decissionmaking processes and weaken the effective rule of the CoE. It is true, democracy works fine only if you can manage to involve sufficient numbers of the community. Still we must attempt it rather than leave it to the individual antechamber powerstruggle.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: charter rewrite: involving the players in the errata pro

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:29 am

So should we have a new clear vote on this?
This is important people, please speak up!
The main purpose of the new charter will be to establish the procedure for validating changes.
If even the CoE members are quiet, we can safely assume that nobody indeed gives a ****
which in itself would prove the point.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Locked

Return to “Council Business - Agenda Items”