Proposal: Let judges vote on their own proposals

JoeNotCharles · Jul 13, 2009

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.

ukingsken · Jul 13, 2009

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.

Dunamin · Jul 13, 2009

Ironically, you can't vote on this proposal, Joe.

Fragsie · Jul 13, 2009

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.

elecgraystone · Jul 13, 2009

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.

stonegod · Jul 14, 2009

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).

renau1g · Jul 14, 2009

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.

covaithe · Jul 14, 2009

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?