Digital Paint Discussion Board
Paintball 2: The Game => Paintball 2 Discussion => Topic started by: webhead on May 19, 2011, 04:33:33 PM
-
Need thoughts on a few ideas.
- Committee elections should be held regularly.
- Voting on committee elections should be open to all members of the community, not just the existing committee.
- Existing committee members should have to be re-elected.
- New committee members should get on the ballot by being nominated by someone else, not by application.
And this last one would be harder to implement, but would benefit the entire process:
- Threads in the committee forum that are "Resolved" should be posted publicly in some way (with sensitive information redacted) so that the electorate can hold their committee members responsible.
Opinions?
Oh, ONE more thing, while I'm at it:
- Committee members should be given ops (or at least hops) in #paintball so somebody's around to kick the spammers/etc. :D
-
Committee elections should be held regularly.
Agreed.
Voting on committee elections should be open to all members of the community, not just the existing committee.
Agreed. This way there will be no reason to rage on the committee, as they were picked by the community itself. To prevent incapable people with a huge amount of friends (or multi's on the forum...) joining the committee, we could make the voting count 50% community voting and 50% committee voting.
Existing committee members should have to be re-elected.
Partially agree. Strictly seen you're right, but I fear this will influence the way of voting of some committee members, that prefer to be re-elected over being honest in some cases (especially when elections are close).
New committee members should get on the ballot by being nominated by someone else, not by application
Hasn't it been like this in the past? Theoretically it isn't that bad at all, but it will probably turn out that those who would have applied, tell a friend to nominate him.
Threads in the committee forum that are "Resolved" should be posted publicly in some way (with sensitive information redacted) so that the electorate can hold their committee members responsible.
Good idea. Not because of the responsibility-thing, but it would be good to improve the transparency towards the community. I feel people can not judge the way committee members can, because of a lack of info. I would suggest to make a small thread saying "this and this happened", "the committee has voted on ..." because of "this and this evidence".
Committee members should be given ops (or at least hops) in #paintball so somebody's around to kick the spammers/etc.
I do agree we might need some new admins in #paintball, but I don't think this automatically means committee members are the right persons for this. Respect and responsibility is something you earn, not something you get when joining the committee.
-
Partially agree. Strictly seen you're right, but I fear this will influence the way of voting of some committee members, that prefer to be re-elected over being honest in some cases (especially when elections are close).
Good point. Maybe we should instead allow for committee members to be recalled by the community.
Hasn't it been like this in the past? Theoretically it isn't that bad at all, but it will probably turn out that those who would have applied, tell a friend to nominate him.
I'm ok with that, even though it's not perfect.
Good idea. Not because of the responsibility-thing, but it would be good to improve the transparency towards the community. I feel people can not judge the way committee members can, because of a lack of info. I would suggest to make a small thread saying "this and this happened", "the committee has voted on ..." because of "this and this evidence".
Exactly.
-
This is how it's been pretty much always.
People apply, committee then chooses some to vote on (nominate), committee votes, new members added at different intervals. (Old members voted on whether they should stay or not too).
If you change the voting to be by the community, then you could have people like myers and chemical being voted for committee just by one bad committee member making a dumb nomination, and voted in by just their friends...
I'd first show what committee does. Maybe take ss's and blur out names, then show what most threads and things deal with. Then see who's interested. But the community certainly doesn't know what's best for it, at least right now.
-
Partially agree. Strictly seen you're right, but I fear this will influence the way of voting of some committee members, that prefer to be re-elected over being honest in some cases (especially when elections are close).
Another thing: if transparency were implemented, the community would be able to see such behavior and [potentially] vote differently.
If you change the voting to be by the community, then you could have people like myers and chemical being voted for committee just by one bad committee member making a dumb nomination, and voted in by just their friends...
Honestly I'm not too worried about that.
But the community certainly doesn't know what's best for it, at least right now.
I am extremely hesitant to consider the elitist mindset, even if it is true.
-
Won't this just turn into a popularity contest? Not who is best for the committee? But I'm usually wrong.
-
Won't this just turn into a popularity contest? Not who is best for the committee? But I'm usually wrong.
Just as easily as the community could get it wrong, the committee could get it wrong.
-
Just as easily as the community could get it wrong, the committee could get it wrong.
The only difference would be that the committee has had experience within the committee, allowing them to have more insight on who would 'fit in'. But yeah, I guess I do agree.
-
true. that's partly why jimmy said:
we could make the voting count 50% community voting and 50% committee voting.
-
1. I think they are fine as is, replacing when in need of new people, due to inactiveness and such. In reality, I don't think there is enough trustworthy active members to keep replacing people with constantly.
2. Not sure if that's a good idea, it would be a popularity contest. I believe the committee is and should be full of 10 people that are capable and trustworthy of choosing who is best for the position.
3. Eh. Maybe the committee should decide on if that member has done an adequate job and needs to be replaced or re-elected. But I don't think anyone (besides current and past committee members) realizes just how much time we put into cases. We do "behind the scenes" work, I don't think everyone should have a vote on it if they don't know how much/little work that individual has done behind the scenes.
4. I see no harm in both, an individual can apply as well as be nominated (if willing). It would only strengthen our opinion of them if they have supporters.
I. Good idea. A cleaned up summary of each case like Jimmy said.
a. This is needed, but does not necessarily need to be the committee members. But it would help players that come on looking for help/answers about committee issues. Say we were all hopped, and the topic could say, "If you need to talk to a committee member about a ban or issue, please private message them, they have a % by their name."
-
1: Yeah maybe, if people get inactive.
2: Could possibly turn into a popularity contest, if put in make sure someone/people with common sense oversee the voting and can have a significant impact on it if its going to someone absolutely ridiculous.
3: Yes. I stuck around only cos I was told to, and I barely did anything after the first time. Make it like reapplying for a job though, if you have to reapply, you don't have to write out your 1-10 questions as always.
4: It was first done like this, and we had a pretty solid committee, mind you it was mostly American. Nominated and then voted by the public could be popularity/stupidity contest again...
I: I don't see anything wrong with posting the resolved section. Just wipe any of the logs jitspoe posts and then it should all be good. Once resolved its done, doesn't need to be private anymore. I don't like the idea of a 'this and that' happened thread. Some people will want to see exactly what happened and just putting bits and pieces would piss me off, cos details may be missing. For example, Rick, your distribution thread was a great fight, and there was too much going on in it for a 'this and that' thread. Just keep the roll calls out (if you still do em :P)
a) meh, whatever. i don't mind if they do or dont, but yeah, doesn't have to be a committee member, can be someone trusted from the public, or even a mapping committee member :P
-
But the community certainly doesn't know what's best for it, at least right now.
This. People who have no committee experience yet will probably have some imagination of the stuff the committee handles, but from experience I can say it's way different from what I expected. Therefore I think we need to find a way to combine the committee experience by full transparency to the community, before we change anything.
and +1 to this:
Won't this just turn into a popularity contest? Not who is best for the committee?
-
The committee doesn't need any sort of moral conduct. It's simple votes, and takes no thinking whatsoever. Just get active people in there to streamline the votes.
-
1. Monthly elections would be good.
2. No!
3. Agree with Cameron.
4. This was how it was done ages ago, am I right?
5. No, to time consuming.
6. Disagree...
-
Therefore I think we need to find a way to combine the committee experience by full transparency to the community, before we change anything.
That's the intent.
-
1. Monthly elections would be good.
including Jitspoe installing the new committee, it takes about 5-6 weeks to pick new committee members (with the current way of working. How the hell would you be able to organize elections every month? Also, changing committee every month would mean that lots of stuff will never be finished, as there's tons of people working on 'm, but they only have time to partially finish stuff.
-
Thats true Jimmy, hmm, maybe Skadoosh's idea would be better then.
-
4. This was how it was done ages ago, am I right?
http://dplogin.com/forums/index.php?topic=8968.0
5. No, to time consuming.
Not really. In most cases it'd be just removing jitspoes logs. Then yeah you have the occasional cases where you have people wanting to remain anonymous. That could become a little more, but not by much, you could edit out a thread in a minute or 2.
-
Not really. In most cases it'd be just removing jitspoes logs. Then yeah you have the occasional cases where you have people wanting to remain anonymous. That could become a little more, but not by much, you could edit out a thread in a minute or 2.
The idea itself isn't that bad, but after re-considering I see no added value on posting the explanation/logs. On the few cases where this could be useful, a committee member can still give out info once required. I think this would cause a lot of extra work, for something that isn't really required. After all it worked fine for the last years.
-
3: Yes. I stuck around only cos I was told to, and I barely did anything after the first time.
I bet you won't go back Cameron! I bet you! :P
-
The few things I see wrong with this...
1) By making it all transparent you will give informants a reason not to come forward. You can edit out the names all you want but the accused can simply deduce who it is by reading the info. You can retract some of this info but then you will have people (sorry Myers but you're an excellent example here) like Myers who will go on and on about a topic that has been brought forth because they can not see ALL the information. So what is the point to transparency? You either give the community too much info or not enough to make it worth doing. lol Pointless IMO
2) If you make committee elections happen more frequently then needed, forcing new people in then you will soon have the same people right back in because the community isn't that active. So what is the point to that? You will just be taking people out of the loop for awhile and then spend the time to get them back into the scene. Let's face it. There are so many topics that take so long to hash out that switching the committee members out will just be a hindrance.
3) If you allow the community to select the people in hopes that they will be satisfied with who is in the committee then you will always have a group who doesn't trust the other. Rick hit this on the head. It will be a popularity contest. You will have people that join the committee and exploit it just like there is now. So why make it easier for them to do so?
All of this is good that you are being proactive but why not take this energy and apply it to something like rehashing ban lengths and setting a simple standard to be followed by this current committee and the ones after it? Before you start trying to change everything why not work towards a simpler goal and go from there?
-
Get rid of the committee - it's a joke and always has been.
-
Committee elections should be held regularly.
Disagree - I'd rather have one group of people that's proven trustworthy stick around for a long period of time. It takes a while for new members to get up to speed, and there's always the potential that new people will start causing issues with the information available. Plus committee elections are just one more thing that takes away from actual development time.
Voting on committee elections should be open to all members of the community, not just the existing committee.
This basically becomes a popularity contest, though I suppose that could be argued for the current system for voting on committee members.
Existing committee members should have to be re-elected.
Disagree - if a committee member isn't doing his job effectively, he should be replaced. If he is, why should he be potentially replaced? I think it's better to keep people with experience.
New committee members should get on the ballot by being nominated by someone else, not by application.
Not sure it makes much of a difference. It keeps out the people who don't have a single supporter, but those people wouldn't get voted for anyway.
Threads in the committee forum that are "Resolved" should be posted publicly in some way (with sensitive information redacted) so that the electorate can hold their committee members responsible.
Disagree - that would require way too much work stripping out personal contact information, chat logs that people don't want shared, etc., and if that information is removed, it wouldn't be available for reference later. I'm not sure what benefit sharing this information would have, either.
Committee members should be given ops (or at least hops) in #paintball so somebody's around to kick the spammers/etc. :D
That can be arranged, but have there been many spammers, etc. in the channel recently?