Policy Review Policy Review - CAP Round Table

[zarator]

Personally, I dont like the "senate" idea, or at least what it should imply. In my opinion, the better way to carry on the Revision process should emulate the Suspect vote of the Smogon Server. Just for the sake of explaining, people who want to effectively vote about a specific revision project must have achieved a certain rank in the ladder, which should prove his experience in use/face the to-be-revisioned CAP. People who did not achieved such result could always post or propose, since - I think - everyone should have at least the right to speak. But the last word - the vote - would belong to the "experienced people". Such method would have the benefit to offer to everyone the possibility to show their prowess. The idea of a group of people who permanently have the right to vote stinks too much to me

 

[tennisace]

CAP Revision
Flounder's post is important. Where is the evidence of bandwagoning in the CAP Revision threads? Where is the radical alteration of the vote by noobs?

Granted, the community and Pure Democracy style polls do not always produce the most polished results but I find I'm hard pressed to see the huge influence of 'noob voting' you seem to be certain of. This is a community project so in order to restrict voters rights there needs to be a pretty damn good reason.

Without a clearer more concrete picture of the detrimental effect of uninformed voting on the CAP Revision process, I don't see the need for a change such as the one you're proposing.

Its not as restrictive as you think. I never said anything about the regular CAP polls. I only said PR threads and CAP Revision threads. People will still have the right to post in there, its just that final decisions would be voted on by the panel, instead of Doug deciding in the case of the PR threads or everyone voting in the CAP Revision threads.

It's impossible to say the motivations and/or experience of other voters, no matter how many times you assert 'they've never been on the server' or 'most voters don't have any clue what a Syclant is' or 'bandwagoning'.
People could have different usernames, or come on the server at different times, or be sporadic but long term server users.

Whatever their background, or reasoning behind their votes, you cannot automatically assume they are clueless because you don't recognise their username.

How is it impossible to say someone doesn't have experience with Syclant when they've never been on the server. Also, its an unspoken rule that if your name on the server isn't your Smogon name, people either ask or you tell a mod.

Policy Review

Policy Review threads are largely discussion based so correct me if I'm wrong but eric's proposal of allowing public posting in PR threads means that not much will change here if a CAP Round Table is formed right?

I'm not clear on the role of the CAP Round Table regarding PR. Maybe I have missed some important PR threads but I thought that PR threads normally come to a conclusion without any formal vote?

I fully support the strict moderation of PR threads encouraging only intelligent, experienced and informed posters.

If clueless idiots are derailing or clogging up PR threads on a regular basis then yes the problem needs dealing with. However, I haven't seen evidence of this - maybe because the mods are efficiently deleting retarded or off topic posts?

Yeah basically. Except that with my proposal, the final verdict shifts from Doug to the panel. There is no formal vote now, there would be one with my proposal.

Edit:

Personally, I dont like the "senate" idea, or at least what it should imply. In my opinion, the better way to carry on the Revision process should emulate the Suspect vote of the Smogon Server. Just for the sake of explaining, people who want to effectively vote about a specific revision project must have achieved a certain rank in the ladder, which should prove his experience in use/face the to-be-revisioned CAP. People who did not achieved such result could always post or propose, since - I think - everyone should have at least the right to speak. But the last word - the vote - would belong to the "experienced people". Such method would have the benefit to offer to everyone the possibility to show their prowess. The idea of a group of people who permanently have the right to vote stinks too much to me

I would have included ladder rating, if it weren't for the fact that there usually isn't anyone on the ladder to begin with. People who aren't on the panel have the right to post/propose too. And the panel would be experienced people.

Btw, the only permanent members are TLs and Forum Mods. I haven't figured out a good time period to switch the members yet.

 

[jagged_angel]

How is it impossible to say someone doesn't have experience with Syclant when they've never been on the server. Also, its an unspoken rule that if your name on the server isn't your Smogon name, people either ask or you tell a mod.

I didn't know about the unspoken rule but I'm just trying to make the point that peoples' usernames can be unfamiliar but they can still have playtested Syclant. There's no way to say for sure.

I'd prefer registered voting to a CAP Senate for CAP Revisions but I'm convinced that neither is necessary at the mo.

Yeah basically. Except that with my proposal, the final verdict shifts from Doug to the panel. There is no formal vote now, there would be one with my proposal.

I guess since a vote would only be necessary in the case of contentious PR threads, it makes sense to have a slightly elite panel of voters.

Policy Review is a complicated business and greatly influences CAP as a whole. Just as inexperienced users have no business posting in the threads, they shouldn't be allowed to vote in PR polls.

As it currently stands, it's easy to judge posters in PR threads from the content of their posts but if a particular PR decision needs voting on, it's much harder to ascertain the knowledge level of every voter.

An exclusive panel would be more democratic than Doug making an executive decision which is the way most PR threads conclude currently, so I'd support the CAP Senate for PR polls.

 

[tennisace]

In that case, I'd consider splitting this proposal into two parts, because it seems that most people agree with the PR voting, but not the CAP Revison part. In retrospect, we probably won't go through a CAP Revision again anyway, since none of the other CAPs are anywhere near broken.

 

[eric the espeon]

For any future revision projects, if there are any more, I would think that a ladder rank based system would be a better way to chose who can vote than the senate. It may have the added side effect of making the CaP ladder more popular as people try to reach the required ratings.

As X-Act said may times during the process even though he is well know and important to CaP he does not know the metagame and that is the most important thing for revisions.

 

[DougJustDoug]

We will not be formally voting on all issues in all PR threads.

Voting on all PR threads may sound nice in theory, but it won't work in practice. Most PR issues are not presented in nice votable parts. Voting on procedural revisions is a bureaucratic nightmare. Look at any governmental legislative process, if you want to know what I mean.

In best cases, it's a breeze. Someone writes a proposal, and everyone votes Yes or No. However, it rarely works out that simple. People rarely reach consensus on all elements of proposal. People vote "Yes, if the following section is changed to X." or "Yes to parts 1, 3, and 7. No to parts 2 and 6. And Maybe to parts 4 and 5, if they are worded differently".

I am not going to go through multiple rounds of formal voting like that. I'm all for democracy, but legislative rule-making is a big pain in the ass, it takes forever, and it produces bloated, confusing, politically-engineered results. I am not going down that road here.

If there are issues that arise where a community poll is warranted, I will open a poll. I did that with the whole Greenhouse/Weather Testing issue. I am sure we will have more polls in the future. If we would like to restrict those polls to a certain list of qualified voters, that's fine. But, all PR issues are not going to be put up for formal voting.

 

[tennisace]

I'd be fine with that then. I'd just like some sort of experienced panel to call on for certain issues.

 

[Time Mage]

Btw, the only permanent members are TLs and Forum Mods. I haven't figured out a good time period to switch the members yet.

Regarding this, even if I already said something before: When/if the senate is made, and specially if they are going to be in charge of voting in the revisions thread, NO ONE, not even past TL or forum mods should have a place granted. Revision threads need people that know the CURRENT metagame, not people that was deeply involved at some moment, and then got the honorific title of permanent panelist. That works for choosing Topic Leaders, but not for revisions. The members that are allowed to vote in revision threads should be picked based on their knowledge of the metagame before other considerations. Only that way the revisions will be meaningful.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Since tennis made this thread, I'm posting this here:

Congratulations to tennisace on becoming the first Smogoner to be given a badge for contributions to the CAP project!

We now officially have our first "pure CAP" badgeholder! I guess that means the CAP project has hit the "big time" now?

I'm so proud...
*sheds tears of joy*
*sniff*
*sniff*

 

[tennisace]

Thanks Doug =)

Also Happy B-Day Bass!

 

[eric the espeon]

Since tennis made this thread, I'm posting this here:

Congratulations to tennisace on becoming the first Smogoner to be given a badge for contributions to the CAP project!

We now officially have our first "pure CAP" badgeholder! I guess that means the CAP project has hit the "big time" now?

I'm so proud...
*sheds tears of joy*
*sniff*
*sniff*

Awesome!
Not only do we have another CaP badgeholder it means that Smogon is counting contributions to the project alongside contributions to Smogon as a whole!


Congrats tennis!

 

[Bass]

Thanks tennis, and congrats as well!

 

[zarator]

Since tennis made this thread, I'm posting this here:

Congratulations to tennisace on becoming the first Smogoner to be given a badge for contributions to the CAP project!

We now officially have our first "pure CAP" badgeholder! I guess that means the CAP project has hit the "big time" now?

I'm so proud...
*sheds tears of joy*
*sniff*
*sniff*

A good recognizement to the importance of the CAP project in spite of those who blame it.

Congratulations, Tennis!

EDIT: Oh, and congratz also to Bass :-P

 

[beej]

Congratulations to tennis for the badge, and happy birthday Bass. Glad to see our project is moving up in the world.

 

[jagged_angel]

Sooo, have we reached a conclusion on this?

Most people agree with experienced voters only for PR issues but not for CAP Revision (if and when it ever happens again).

PR Threads are only going to require a vote in the case of a contentious issue that cannot be decided through discussion alone. This has never happened before and most PR issues are complex enough that they cannot easily be decided by vote (summarising DJD).

DJD mentions community polls such as the Greenhouse/Weather Testing issue and the possibility of elite voting if future cases arise. However this is different to PR in that it does not by nature affect future CAP projects whereas PR is designed to refine or revise the CAP project as a whole and so has a much farther reaching and greater impact than community polls.

I would not be in favour of Senate voting for community polls such as the Greenhouse poll; it was at least nominally part of a specific CAP (CAP3) and was an issue that directly affected the course of that CAP, therefore it would count as a regular poll in terms of influence, therefore not required an experienced panel of voters to determine its outcome. The weather testing issue was a significant community endeavour and as such required a community vote as the whole community was required to undertake the weather testing.

That leaves no defined goal for a CAP Senate so I would propose not implementing this for now.

In the future an issue may arise that requires a vote restricted to users experienced and knowledgeable on the issue in question.

 

[tennisace]

I've pretty much come full circle, it would pretty much clog up PR threads if we needed to have a vote EVERY TIME. However, I'd like a panel to have for threads like the Greenhouse test; it would smooth those special processes over more.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I'm fine with the idea of convening special panels for certain policy votes. But, I can't figure out a reasonable way to select the panel. We currently use a voting panel for selecting TL's, however, I do not think we should use that process as an example for use elsewhere on the project. In fact, I'd like to replace the TL Selection Panel with something better.

If we could come up with a good way of making "experienced project member voting panels" (we need a proper name for these), then I would use it not just for policy votes, but for TL Selection as well. The current process for the TL Selection Panel has several problems:

It heavily relies on the assumption that Topic Leaders will remain actively involved in the project. As we found out with Cooper, that is not necessarily the case. Fortunately, Cooper was open about his participation level, and he resigned voluntarily. But what if he didn't? What if a TL stops participating and is not as gracious as Cooper? What if they like the "status" of the permanent seat on the panel, and don't want to give it up? If a permanent panelist becomes inactive, it could have a "double whammy" effect on the panel -- not only would that panelist's votes be compromised, but they also could make bad selections for other panelists.

It is a pain to communicate with all the panelists to assemble the panel, collect ballots, and disseminate results. Using PM's is very inefficient. Because of this, the selection panel must be relatively small.

It is elitist. This is not by design, but is simply a consequence of other factors. I do not want the panel to be selected by general popular choice. If we did that, I fear that random badgeholders will be selected over other more experienced CAP project members, simply because they are more "popular" throughout Smogon. For this reason, the panel is selected by people that are presumably knowledgeable about who participates and who does not. While there was no intent to be elitist, the process of panel selection is the very definition of "elitism".

It's too secretive. The selection of panelists is conducted over PM, because it is the most direct way to communicate with a few people. I suppose the process could be conducted in a thread in the forum, but I could see that getting messy. As for the private voting on the TL -- that is intended to prevent discouraging the losing TL candidates. It may be unnecessary. Because the panel is small and is composed of respected members of the CAP community, I don't want any candidate to feel rejected by the most senior members of the project. Particularly since I'd like most losing TL candidates to run again in the future.​

These problems with the TL Selection Panel are general problems with making a small elite voting group. However, if we could solve the problems, I'd like to use the group for policy votes and TL selection.

Here's a proposal to kick around:

• We convene a CAP Voting Panel at the beginning of every CAP project. That voting panel will serve until the next voting panel is assembled. So each panel will serve a term of a couple of months.
  
  
• A panel nomination thread will be opened at the same time we open the TL nomination thread. The same general rules apply. You need to be experienced, you can only nominate yourself, you should make a brief pitch for why you should be on the panel.
  
  
• The forum moderators will select the panelists, based on members involvement in the forum. There is no limit to the number of panelists. The goal is to be very "inclusive". Anyone that is regularly active in the forum, that makes reasonably intelligent posts, and that wants to serve on the panel -- should be selected.
  
  
• I would make a post at the conclusion of the nomination period listing all the panelists that I want on the panel, and I would close the thread. All the other moderators would edit that post and add in any names of people that they want, that I did not include. Moderators should not remove names from the panel. Basically, the mods can only vote "Yes" for people, and it only takes one "Yes" to make it on the list. After the CAP project starts, no names can be added to the list.
  
  
• That final post would serve as the definitive list of panelists for the entire term.
  
  
• The voting panel will vote on the Topic Leader, any special votes deemed necessary by the TL during the CAP project, and any CAP policy votes deemed necessary by the forum moderation staff.
  
  
• When holding panel votes, they would be done in voting threads in the CAP forum. Only approved panelists can post in the voting threads. Any non-panelist posts would be deleted. This makes the voting relatively easy to conduct.

I can think of a few problems with this process, but overall I think I like it better than the current method. Please post your comments and feedback.

 

[Time Mage]

I think that issues pretty well the TL and Policy Review panels, but... What about the issue that brought the question in the first place, that is, revision votes?

As I've said before, the people voting in revision threads should be exclusively those with good battling experience with the CAP being revised. And that's a group of people that doesn't necessarily coincide with the ones apt for the TL and PR discussions.

I think that the members voting on the revision threads should be picked among the candidates (self-proposed, like in the other cases) by the server moderators. I'm sure people like tennisace and eric know the members that battle regularly enough to make a proper decision.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I agree with Time Mage regarding revision voting. We could convene a special voting panel, whose explicit purpose is for voting on a specific pokemon for revision. The panel would be assembled in the same general way outlined in my proposal above, but the server moderation staff would select the voters. The revision voting panel's term would only last for the duration of the revision. When a new pokemon comes up for revision, a new voting panel would be assembled. It would be a separate panel from the "regular" CAP voting panel I described in my proposal above.

 

[eric the espeon]

If we ever do a revision again I would support choosing the voting panel entirely by ladder rating.

Its nice and simple and ensures that everyone has a chance, as well as saving the small hassle for whoever would chose them otherwise and having the side affect of increasing ladder popularity.

Its also been tried and tested by the Smogon Suspect process.

The voting panel will vote on the Topic Leader, any special votes deemed necessary by the TL during the CAP project, and any CAP policy votes deemed necessary by the forum moderation staff.

Would this mean that for PR threads without a solid conclusion the panel would vote?

I do not want the panel to be selected by general popular choice. If we did that, I fear that random badgeholders will be selected over other more experienced CAP project members, simply because they are more "popular" throughout Smogon.

hmm.. I can see this would be a major problem, I withdraw the idea about elections. It would also be pretty complicated to orchestrate.

 

[Magmortified]

Agreeing with both TM's and Doug's proposals. Forum mods select the panel for TL and PR, Server mods select the panel for Revision. Though it'd probably be more concrete if the Revision panel was selected by ladder score, the userbase probably isn't large enough right now to allow that kind of thing... like tennis said. I find the ladder frequently empty, and most of the same people on it when it isn't. Which doesn't overall produce the environment that makes a ladder score very meaningful.

 

[jagged_angel]

That sounds like a very sensible revision to the current TL Selection process DJD. It makes sense to tie in any possible PR/extra-process voting in this way.

I'd support Time Mage's suggestion for the CAP Revision threads - it would make more sense to use ladder rating if we had a stable and well populated ladder but unfortunately it's just not used enough for that.

 

[tennisace]

I like the idea of two separate panels; it reflects the duel natures of the CAP project. Maybe I was approaching the "unified panel" wrong, there are two different user groups that sometimes overlap. We could have "Forum Panelists" and "Server Panelists", each chosen by the prospective mods.

However, I think that if three of the five "Forum Mods" vote no on a person, they should be removed. The five would be Doug, Mekkah, X-Act, Darkie, and Bass, just to round things out, unless someone declines. This way, there would be a "check" against favoritism.

 

[ParadOxymoron]

Proposal

If there's a tie, or if something wins with less than 50.5% of the vote, a quick runoff poll will be conducted by the CAP Voting Panel.

 

[RBG]

we already have a process for deciding ties that was just discussed and approved. I personally think that adds too much elitism to the this round table.