Proposal: Fix the proposal system

[CaBaNa]

good point.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

IMHO the votes should only be rescinded if the proposal dies and reopens (not formally, I just mean through neglect). In that situation most people would come to it with a new perspective, but votes from the judges who haven't been around would still be counted even though, if they'd been there, they'd probably change their minds.

I don't think a proposal that's sitting idle should ever be suddenly reactivated because a vote expires (for one thing, somebody would need to be monitoring the old proposals in order to notice!)

As a separate issue, I think having separate rules for "proposals expire" and "judges' votes expire" is too complicated. The voting system is already pretty complicated.

So I think I'm leaning towards simply expiring votes that don't get a resolution (which would automatically expire votes of judges that aren't around anymore). That only leaves the situation where a judge casts a vote, then vanishes, and while discussion drags on a lot of new points are raised (or new material comes out which changes the situation) and so the remaining judges think that first vote should no longer be valid. In that case, we can always make a specific proposal "ignore JoeNotCharles' vote, he hasn't been here for months and missed most of the discussion".

 

[Kalidrev]

I like that even better JNC. What should the time limit be for expiring a proposal through neglect? What will the determinants be for expiring a proposal through neglect? X months without any VOTES in a proposal, or simply X months without any posts/discussion in a proposal?

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Well, it's very possible for a contentious proposal to go for a month without getting any votes at all (cough Minotaurs), so that would cause them to expire while they're still in the initial discussion. Maybe forcing us to make up our minds is a feature, though.

I think it should be 1 month, since we already have a lot of "1 month" time limits so it's much easier to remember. I could be convinced either way on "1 month without votes" vs "1 month without discussion", but I think I lean towards the latter right now.

 

[Kalidrev]

I, myself, would prefer the latter as well, since there are several times where judges will reserve their judgments while someone is giving their arguments for or against the proposal, or just haven't made up their mind yet (though they'll have to do so much quicker with only a month, lol). Of course, there's always the random *bump* to fix that issue if we go with the latter

Another thing I don't quite understand is why we make proposal votes like tennis matches. Why does one side have to beat the other by 2 votes? Why can't it be simple majority?

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Two reasons I can think of (although I wasn't around when it was first set up so I'm extrapolating):

One is to avoid the situation where it's neck-and-neck, and two judges want to vote but one of them does it on Wednesday and the other one doesn't check the thread until the weekend. The vote could "really" be neck-and-neck but temporarily ahead by one just because of lag in posting - if it's ahead by two it's much more clear that it's a "real" lead and not just waiting on somebody to even it up again.

The other is that if we're that close to being split down the middle, it really is a contentious proposal, and there's a chance that the losers will be bitter because there's an especially large segment of judges that disagree with the winner. We want to be sure that proposals pass by a super-majority, not just a slim margin.

 

[Kalidrev]

Thanks for the explanation JNC... that was rather well thought out and explained!

 

[covaithe]

What JNC said, plus: that's the way LEW and (3e) LEB did it, and large sections of the charter were cribbed from them.

I don't remember ever seeing a proposal that had a majority, but not a 2-vote majority. I'd agree that a vote that close probably indicated a real problem.