Quite often I see somebody toss off an idea in another thread and think, "That's a good idea. Somebody should turn that into a full proposal." But then I remember that if I were to propose it myself, I couldn't vote, so I don't bother.
In a lot of these cases, I'm just interested in the idea and want to see what everyone has to say about it, and I could easily see myself being talked out of voting for it, just as with a proposal somebody else made. So I don't think the ban on voting for your own proposals is necessary to make sure they get a fair hearing.
It's kind of iffy. On the one hand I totally agree, because lots of times a proposal comes up and I read through it at first and think "yeah thats not a bad idea at all" and then someone else will post explaining a problem with it and all the sudden I shift gears to "Well now that someone has pointed out that problem I see why this isn't such a great idea."
So I guess I don't inherently see a problem with voting on things you propose yourself, although I think it has the potential to cause contention in a close vote. That being said I don't think I've ever seen a close vote. Around here things are usually discussed/argued/reasoned out until a unanimous (or nearly unanimous) decision is reached.
In instances like your example; could you not simply create a forked proposal thread, and quote the original poster in the top post? That way you are not actually making the proposal, but simply highlighting it and calling for a seperate discussion.
Or we could allow judges to vote on forked proposals. Just start the thread with 'Forked Proposal' and link to the thread it got forked from. This would keep the ban on your own original proposals, but allow them for community created ones. I'm sure the other judges will be able to tell the difference.
LEB 3.5 allowed judges to vote on published material even if they proposed it: They didn't have a hand in creating it, so in that sense they were neutral.
As for homebrew/non-mechanical stuff: That's a little bit more personal, so on contentious issues takes away the impartiality judges are supposed to have (or at least the idea of which are supposed to have).
__________________ stonegod -- LEB judge and spawn of Khyber since 2005 (Blog)
I agree with sg here. If WOTC put it out the proposer/judge is somewhat neutral (sure there's something in it they want most likely, but nothing they're really different than if someone else proposes it. If the judges really wanted to they can always just create an account and propose it that way. Not saying our judges would do it, but its a relatively easy control to sidestep.
I'm fine with it for WOTC stuff only. Homebrew should be vetted more fully.
We don't usually have a shortage of voters on WotC material. At least not eventually.
Where this gets more problematic is the one-off proposals, e.g. "Award time gold retroactively for garyh's DM credits." Should garyh have been allowed to vote on that? Probably not a great idea. I think our judges have been great about not using their mad skillz powers for evil, but why rock the boat?
Ok, how about "judge's are not allowed to vote on proposals that affect their characters"?
Isn't that a little much? I mean, that could easily prevent them from voting on things like [Power Source] Power, or PHBX. I mean, how many of the judges have a martial character?
Unless you meant, "judges are not allowed to both propose and vote on proposals that affect their characters."
How do we decide which proposals effect characters? E.g., here are some potential proposals that might be considered to affect Quagmire:
Where's the line? Who decides?
I assume the line is on homebrew stuff. Anything by WOTC should be fine to be voted on by the judges, as it's officially supported by the designers of the game. Now third-party materials (like the quintessential fighter by Mongoose) would require the other judges to vote, but not the proposer.
As I've said before the control mechanism preventing judges for proposing things isn't strong. It only takes the judge asking another player, creating an alt account,etc. to put something in.
Cov brings up a good point; you can usually rationalize that a given player character might potentially benefit from any new material, even if the character option in question isn't directly applicable to that PC or at this moment in the PC's career.
However, I'm inclined to agree with renau. It doesn't seem "unfair" that a judge proposes and votes on Divine Power, just because he/she is playing a cleric..
I'm not terribly worried about proposals to allow new material; I got carried away with my theoretical power and kind of missed the point. I'm more worried about one-off proposals for exceptions, like "give Tonk 18 CON", "let Hrav have retroactive DM gold", "let Palindrome have an overhaul even though he's higher than level 1" and so forth.
In particular, I fully expect Quagmire to profit indirectly from Hrav getting that extra gold, in that Quag's party will be that much more powerful. Should I not have voted on that? What if I had decided to spend DM points of my own at the same time garyh did, and had made a proposal of my own that Quagmire get retroactive DM gold? Should garyh have been able to vote on that? I think there's a pretty obvious quid pro quo there.
I mean, if all we're talking about here is "I propose Dragon 666", then, yeah, who cares.
you definitely bring up a good point cov and one I really don't have a great answer for. If the proposal sees no significant lashback from the community as a whole (and we have some pretty experienced living pbp'ers here) than we should be able to give the judges the benefit of the doubt on things.
The issue is more that a few of the judges are in a game together and could potential have some minor collusion, but with the majority of the judges not in that game they should be able to control and potential conflicts. Also, if a judge feels he can't give the impartiality a proposal needs/deserves, then I'm hoping they'd choose to abstain from that vote.
Yeah. I trust our judges; I'm certainly not trying to say otherwise. It's just that... A misunderstanding, or a perception of abuse, would be just as bad as actual abuse. Worse, in some ways. That kind of thing can really divide a community and make it stop being fun. Even if the risk is very small, I'm just not sure it's worth it for so small a benefit as being able to vote on our own proposals.
Again, if it's just for new rules elements, I think we're on safer ground.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
