Quote from LukeCreative on 2018/04/12, 11:52

I agree with 90% of what you're saying. Though I don't think it's gotten out of hand, I just think there should be defined voting open and closing periods on a set time of a month, so then I can easily expect when to vote instead of sporadically. Plus I feel like it would mean more. But I certainly agree, with having a couple reasons, for nomination really is a good idea. One thing I also encounter is sometimes I feel like I'm in a different timezone from another player that I don't catch so I really don't have enough information to make a judgement, I understand being able to abstain in certain cases, but if I know what to look for because someone filled out reasons, that can help influence me to check out their work and help me determine one way or another.

Quote from uncovery on 2018/04/12, 13:15

Some thoughts:

Voting is self-regulating as it is setup. Is it self-regulating enough? Maybe not, but we can tighten the sytem. It's self-regulating in the sense that if there are more Elders, everyone down the line needs more votes to become promoted. This seems to be showing some efficiency right now as there are multiple proposals on the ballot right now that don't seem to be able to get enough votes. How can we tighten the screws?

• One way to strengthen it would be to give Elders 100% veto rights, i.e. if one Elder disagrees, the vote is cancelled.
• Another way would be to increase the points attributed to Elders so that more non-elder votes are needed for approval on the lower ranks. the scale is currently 1-2-4-8, we could make it 1-4-8-16 for example. This would mean that we need more top rank votes or VERY broad approval from the lower ranks.
• We can also shorten the voting period from 2 months to a week so that people need to vote in the first week of the month, if there is no broad approval, the vote is not accepted.

I generally think people should abstain if they don't know the player. This is hard to enforce but right now there is a certain "vote everyone up" behavior because people hesitate to vote down and feel the need to vote either up or down.I am not sure how to improve this. I don't think its feasible to make any check on the question if a user actually made a well-informed decision when they vote.

In the end, the question is if we want to limit proposals or blind "yes"-votes (or both?). If we require some reason to be given when someone is proposed, there is a risk that someone just writes "Nice Guy"-type of stuff and then people who don't know that person blindly vote up because they don't know any info to prove that the proposal is wrong.

So considering the above, I think that

• We should shorten the time that someone can be voted on, 2 months is too long. 1 Month should be the maximum
• We should tip the voting power more to the Elders, with a 1-3-6-10 balance so that one Elder can overrule more lower ranks.
• We can introduce a questionnaire for the proposal where the proposer needs to rank the user in 4-5 categories such as online time, helpfulness, building skills, maturity and so on that other users can see to judge themselves if what they think about the user. There is a risk of lazy proposals where the proposer just ranks someone on the top or almost-top rank for everything. I am not sure if this will add anything to the process.
• We can introduce a questionnaire for everyone who votes, the question is what the result of the questionnaire should be. Questions could be such as "How well do you know this player" or same one as for the proposer. AS a result, the system could make a proposal (or fixed conclusion) if the vote should be positive or negative points given. E.g. for an Elder vote, if the voter does not rank full points on Maturity, the vote becomes a veto. So people don't just vote anymore, they give points and the vote is then based on that.

Any other ideas or comments?

Quote from LukeCreative on 2018/04/12, 13:22

I feel like the proposal should have a written portion to discourage proposal laziness, at least for the higher ranks and I feel like tipping towards the elders gives a bit too much power. I think either if we go a week, then make it one week a month that all voting happens, or just make it a month, but 2 months really is too long.

 

Update: Also, I might add... this give users context as to why they were promoted. Sometimes as a player I really just want to know what led to my promotion. And this can help others understand what gets people promoted and I feel gives more value and recognition to the proposal.

Quote from michelleasaurus on 2018/04/12, 13:28

I like what you have so far. I have one more suggestion, and it might not even be feasible: I think a user should be able to loose rank. For instance; maybe someone was awesome for a while and they got voted up, but years later they're not acting according to their rank. Could we tie karma into this, and make it possible for someone with horrible karma to go down a peg?

Quote from Emberstorms on 2018/04/12, 13:42

I think Alley has some valid points as ranking up has become more of a popularity contest than actually being based off merits. I think having the explanation of why someone should rank up makes sense, as it tells the voters what merit the person proposing sees in that person. I also agree with uncovery that the elders votes should count more. I’m not sure about de-ranking at every rank level, but I could see it towards the top of the ranks where more responsibility is added, though again, I think that would just turn right back into being a popularity contest, and instead of going off merits, it would just be based off other  people’s idle gossip that doesn’t belong on a server with private voting to begin with.

Quote from pinebenj1 on 2018/04/12, 15:21

I'm generally in agreement with Alleywig. I think the user that proposes someone for promotion should have to write a paragraph (say 100 words, minimum) justifying their proposal. Having a minimum word count is a coarse way of discouraging laziness, but does not solve the issue completely.

Now, since the issue is basically that too many people are being proposed, what I think should supplement this paragraph is not so much shortening the voting time or increasing the Elder weight, but rather adding a limit on how many times a user can propose someone. For instance, an elder could be allowed to propose a user once a month, a master once every two months, and a designer once every three or four months. This way, if someone doesn't write up a convincing justification, they risk their proposal being wasted and have to wait several months to propose again. This is essentially reiterating what alley said.

 

 

Quote from Camerissan on 2018/04/12, 16:40

I have a few things to say,

1. I like the idea for shortening the proposal time, maybe to say 2 weeks or as has already been mentioned 1 week.

2. I like the written proposal would also be a good idea, stating why, what for and other things with real justification.   When i first got promoted (not master, architect) i practically bounced through the roof because i never thought i would get to that point, right now we have several proposals names that i know but i do not know much more.

3. I have tried to abstain when voting especially if i have not known the person or do not want to look like a total B**** but when i do this the voting system pokes me to vote again even though it is set at abstain and i feel bullied into giving a plus or negative.

General points. 

Not so sure about giving the elder full overlord rights on yes or no say i can understand the reasoning behind this suggestion but in my thinking it is a little extreme and their points system already gives them alot of influence over the final current final say.

I WANT/WOULD LIKE etc voting to mean that people are building and are doing as much as they can for the community and trying ti help people, build well and do things.   We are not a country club (yes i said it) with exclusive membership and vip rights, we are a community of creative thinkers and builders who are playing, building and having fun together.

I do not often speak my mind in the forums but i am going to damn well do so at this point, i have been here for a number of years and I love this server and the people who i knew back then also some of the new guys who have come on and built.   I do not want to watch something that i and i also know quite a few people care about suddenly turn into a propose a friend club and get voted upwards because they are buddies with a guy who is in high ranks.   You build, create, help and do your best and you then get proposed.   I am sorry if this sounds really harsh but thats exactly what is going through my head and i don't feel like covering it in icing sugar.

 

 

 

 

Quote from riedi73 on 2018/04/12, 16:43

These are good points and we should have kind a catalogue how people use the hole Thing (the site and the game). Not only they vote on a regulare base and then think they would be promoted or not only they use the shop properly. In fact we could use the "Achievements" for that, or an average of those.

Just is it fair to begin with that right now... because we a relatively far with our system. I'm doupting. 

I say we give elder an veto right of 100% per voice to cancel a vote.

Quote from lilroc17 on 2018/04/12, 19:10

I would like to see shorter voting window.

The written portion to say why you should rank up is a great idea. Members don't play at the same time aka different time zones. By a member pointing what they have done and what they plan to offer would be a great help.

I do like the elder veto power, but should be at least two elders to veto.

Make ranking up voting every other month

As far as demoting a member No. If you see a problem with a member address it to email Unc about it. In the past handling a problem with another member does not end well for all evolved.

Quote from VixenGold on 2018/04/12, 20:28

I would like to see why someone should be voted up as mentioned by several people above.  Many times I have seen people up for vote that I have had little to no interaction with and must look at how often they have voted for the server, their lots, builds, and time they have spent on the server.  Sometimes I have voted against that person because I could see little to none information on this and have not seen a reason why to vote for that person.

I have seen a few people say that they just vote yes on everyone and figure that if there is an issue with the person up for vote that others will give a no vote and this will take care of it.  Maybe one should have a number of hours on the server, at their current rank, per a time period before being allowed to vote or put someone up for vote?  This might help solve the issue of blind votes.  Maybe put a limit on how many people one can list to a rank up?

Maybe have it so that it costs uncs to put someone up for vote.  The higher the rank, the more it costs.

I will say that I do miss it when one ranked up due to contest builds.  Those contest build got people more involved in building and it helped show off your builds.  I learned a lot from looking at other people's builds.

 

Quote from uncovery on 2018/04/12, 21:20

Quote from LukeCreative on 2018/04/12, 13:22

Update: Also, I might add... this give users context as to why they were promoted. Sometimes as a player I really just want to know what led to my promotion. And this can help others understand what gets people promoted and I feel gives more value and recognition to the proposal.

This is a great idea.

Quote from uncovery on 2018/04/12, 21:21

Quote from michelleasaurus on 2018/04/12, 13:28

I like what you have so far. I have one more suggestion, and it might not even be feasible: I think a user should be able to loose rank. For instance; maybe someone was awesome for a while and they got voted up, but years later they're not acting according to their rank. Could we tie karma into this, and make it possible for someone with horrible karma to go down a peg?

Theoretically, yes. I would rather do that on a vote though, not just by karma.

Quote from riedi73 on 2018/04/12, 21:54

I like this idea very much.

Quote from psiber on 2018/04/12, 22:00

As an extension to the "reason for being promoted" I'd love to be able to see who actually started the vote, something like a vote of confidence in the member for the reason.

So to explain better, to be able to see who suggested rank up, and for what reason.

I also mirror the comments above where sometimes you do not know somebody because you play different time zones - being able to see "great build at xyz" as a reason would really help or similar.

Quote from The_Cave_Warrior on 2018/04/12, 22:14

I do feel the user voting had too many promotions lately. I think maybe there should a limit as to how many users can get promoted per month (like 1 to 2 per month or something). Also a user should have good reasons for a certain person to get promoted like a checklist of reasons why.

Quote from stephdeg on 2018/04/12, 22:16

My comments and suggestions on various points, all free and optional.. I'll let everyone to recognise their input in here:

- I don't think the system is that "out of hand". Yes there is more votes but it's not so bad as to become a nuisance in terms of time spent voting.

- An extra cool-down for the submitter seems like a good idea. There could even be a third cool-down for a particular "submitter/submitted" combo, which could be longer than the former ones (in order to limit the possibility of having the same user resubmitting the same person).

- Blank vote (or active abstention) should be allowed and registered. This would count as an abstention in the final score but would un-trigger the vote warning upon logging in the server.

- Voting final score (plain poundered %) should be visible to all allowed voters, which should automatically include the newly promoted in case of success. The abstention score (counting out the blank votes) should also be published. That might help people to see how far a user is from making the cut. The abstention score should also be poundered with voters's weights.

- Optional: Abstention score (counting out blank votes) might be published during the vote, but that's plain luxury, not a requirement.

- Voting DL: 1 month sounds better than 2, but 1-2 week sounds a bit short to me.

- Increased weight for elders: I think there's a need for something like this. Another possibility would be to raise the cut threshholds for promotion in the lower ranks.

- The last two points will/would increase the duties upon elders, and call for enhanced reactivity. In that case it might be needed to allow elders to step back from those responsabilities and put themselves on "standby" when they foresee that they are entering a period of low availability on the server, but will still log in from times to times to keep their account active. I have personnally know a period like this (before I was promoted elder) and I don't rule out that it will happen again, and I'd feel bad if I had the feeling that it might alter the good working of the server. Standby elders would not be counted as possible voters by the voting scoring machine.

- Elder veto: It's already the case for the last rank (elder), and multiple veto is a good idea. One logical step might be to have a progressive scale of sufficient elder vetos as you go gown the ranks. Elder -> 1 veto is enough. Master -> 2, Designer -> 3, Architect -> 4. That means more coding and more complicated voting rules to explain/document though.

- Introduction text: I like it. It also raises the issue of signature.. if the author includes a description of what he knows about the submitted, then he might give hints about who he/she is. We might aswell authorise the author to sign the submission. Probably not make it compulsory though, but it will make signed proposal more likely to succeed.

- Filling categories upon voting: I like the idea but it might be complicated to code AND to use.. and we want people to vote fast, so it might be counter productive. Still the idea to make people as themselves the good question is seductive.

Grats to you if you read all ;p (I'll put key words in bold so that you can skip uninteresting paragraphs)

 

Quote from LukeCreative on 2018/04/12, 22:56

So I so understand wanting to give Elders a bit more power, but sometimes I think when we are promoting people there are some that would rather just play and not worry about extra responsibilities. Like as the promoted user currently you randomly find out you've been promoted, and then you suddenly have new responsibilities you never asked for. I think there should be some sort of opt-out of being promoted checkbox that at designer rank lets you choose if you want to be considered for Master or not, and the same once you reach Master to be considered for Elder.

With that Unc mentioned in the past maybe having several degrees of a rank, like maybe 3-4 like 1st degree designer or 3rd degree master indicated by stars next to the name or something. The reason I bring this up is I don't think this should be a popularity contest and that we should only reward people on who we think might be better with admin functions. I think this pattern could be used to actually reward people for their build efforts and contests. If we were to migrate the existing system, I feel like all current users at a rank should start at level 2. The only downside to this is I feel like this requires more effort from users to vote for that many more rank options.

I also am not opposed to Psiber's suggestion with the nominator's name being both displayed on the vote page and on the user announcement page. It could be something like this: "[Promoted username] was promoted to [Rank name] by [Nominator username] for: [Reason]."

Quote from michelleasaurus on 2018/04/12, 22:56

Quote from VixenGold on 2018/04/12, 20:28

I will say that I do miss it when one ranked up due to contest builds.  Those contest build got people more involved in building and it helped show off your builds.  I learned a lot from looking at other people's builds.

 

I do not miss people "winning" their rank with contest builds... because there are cases where people were given a higher rank, but don't really know how the server works - or have the desire to learn. I think rank should be earned on multiple levels, not won.

I think a contest win or great building style, should be used in consideration with other factors to determine if someone is worthy of the next ranking level (also, this is only important on the higher ranks.. designer+).

Quote from LukeCreative on 2018/04/12, 23:10

I have another oddball idea, and that's totally okay if this gets shot down. For at least Elder proposals, and possibly Master ranks, reverse the process and have the user that wants to be promoted write their own proposal and reasons and have the others vote on it accordingly. Future Masters/Elders should be able to make their own case, and in most cases it shows that they're serious about obtaining said rank. I feel if we did this, we should make it at least 4-6 months at those ranks before they can propose themselves.