AU Mod-Power of the People

Tassadar500 · November 16, 2003, 16:27

We have now selected our panel. Now we need to select the Power of the People position. That position would just essentially break all the ties. Please vote for the person who you would think would listen to the people's suggestions the most and generally you have alot of confidence in.

vmxa1 · November 16, 2003, 18:38

Why don't you act as the VP and cast the tie breaker. That way we do not have to choose. Do not have to feel bad about picking one over another. It would be a very hard choice for me.

alexman · November 16, 2003, 19:03

Nuclear Master, I think that by "power of the people" Dominae meant that for each decision of the mod, if the members of the panel are divided (3-3), we would set up a public poll and everyone would be welcome to vote for the tie-breaker.

At least that's how I understood it.

Tassadar500 · November 16, 2003, 19:08

Damn. I think your right alexman. By one of the sentence's Dominae stated I assumed it was a position.

Theseus · November 17, 2003, 22:14

Without re-reading the thread, I understood Dominae's idea the same way NM did... one person would have the position of ombudsman.

That said, I like the way alexman has described "power of the people" more. I don;t think this type of lack of resolution will happen too often, and when it does we should open it up to the community (including posting where the modders will find it).

But feel free to vote for me.

/me abstains.

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 22:42

Sorry for my confusing English.

By "power of the people" I meant that all non-panelists would be lumped together to get one vote on the panel. A poll would determine which way this vote would go.

This could be used solely to break ties. Or, "the people" could hold a full position on the panel.

Basically it's a way of getting everyone involved, but still use the basic panel idea I proposed.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea. Let's keep it simple and stick with an odd number of individual panelists.

Dominae

Catt · November 17, 2003, 22:52

Why don't we just leave the six panelists in place and provide that changes from stock require a majority (4 votes) so there is never a chance of a split deadlocking a proposal? If my intuition is correct, the precise number of panelists will change over time as people come and go, and demands on time cause panelists to reassess their availability.

Catt

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 23:14

That's exactly why I would prefer a small number of dedicated panelists.

It's not that this is a time-intensive job, it's that if people come and go the panel, and consequently the AU mod, will lack coherence.

Remember that the panel is only there to decide on controversial changes. Everyone gets a voice in the AU mod; the panel is only there to settle disputes, and to remind everyone of the AU mod philosophy (because all ideas are welcome, but only some are appropriate).

Dominae

Tassadar500 · November 17, 2003, 23:18

I'll leave this thread open so we can discuss what to do with the number of panelists and all that other stuff

Catt · November 17, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
That's exactly why I would prefer a small number of dedicated panelists.

It's not that this is a time-intensive job, it's that if people come and go the panel, and consequently the AU mod, will lack coherence.

I don't know lockstep or ZargonX enough to say, but each of you, alexman, Nor Me and Theseus have all come and gone and come, to a degree, from the forums (just as I have as well). As you point out, the panel is "formally" useful as only a dispute resolution mechanism (and "informally" as those posters most likely, perhaps, to bring reasoned change proposals to the masses), which means that after a brief spurt of activity some weeks from now as C3C changes to the AU Mod are proposed and debated, the panel is unlikely to be called on all that often. I'm thinking more about the longer term (i.e., 3 months out) when there is an institutionalized dispute resolution mechanism the doesn't work because it has become rusty -- by instituting a "majority rule" or a "50% +1" rule, you eliminate going through a whole bureaucratic polling process everytime a panel member drifts away or is unavailable for several discussions.

BTW -- and quite a bit off-topic -- why in the heck is cdgroup.org credited with the AU Mod submission on the C3C Bonus CD?

Catt

Tassadar500 · November 18, 2003, 00:01

I wonder why it's called the Apolyton University Mod. It's not like it's from Apolyton or anything

Catt · November 18, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
I wonder why it's called the Apolyton University Mod. It's not like it's from Apolyton or anything

Exactly - but unless you open the readme, you'll have no idea what "AU" even stands for, let alone what 'Poly is.

Catt

Dominae · November 18, 2003, 00:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
BTW -- and quite a bit off-topic -- why in the heck is cdgroup.org credited with the AU Mod submission on the C3C Bonus CD?

Probably because the one who submitted it called it that way.

Nuclear Master, check your PMs.

Dominae

Tassadar500 · November 18, 2003, 00:58

Dominae, check YOUR PMs

Catt · November 18, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

Probably because the one who submitted it called it that way.

Likely accurate but also unhelpful - like the response of the farmer in the field in the oft-repeated ballonist joke (substitute your favorite downtrodden individual / position for the man on the ground and your favorite punching bag / position for the balloonist):

Quote:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below.

He lowers the balloon further and shouts: "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"

The man below says: "yes you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."

"You must work in Information Technology," says the balloonist.

"I do," replies the man. "How did you know?"

"Well" says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's no use to anyone."

The man below says, "You must work in Management".

"I do" replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well", says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault."

Catt

Dominae · November 18, 2003, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Likely accurate but also unhelpful

Sorry, I misread your question (which is about cdgroup.org and not the AU name). Thanks for the joke; in my circles it usually involves programmers and management.

Dominae

alexman · November 18, 2003, 11:49

Good one, Catt.

CDG got credit for the AU mod because Firaxis pays more attention to CDG than they do to Apolyton. They asked them to submit their mods for the bonus CD, but they didn't ask come here to ask at all. So I submitted the AU mod through CDG.

As for the "power of the people" vote, I think it's a good idea and we should definitely do it that way. It's one panelist that's sure to show up every time, and it keeps the interest of the community alive. Even newcomers can be active with ideas and discussion in the creation of the mod, and they still get to make a difference in the voting. It's as simple as having an odd number of panelists, but with an extra poll in the case of a close decision.

It should be a tie-breaking vote because a such a vote still has exactly the same weight as one panelist's vote (it's just like voting last every time), but we won't have to set up a poll for every single decision.

PS. And stop voting in this poll! There is no reason for giving two votes to one panelist instead of having an odd number of panelists.

Stuie · November 18, 2003, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
As for the "power of the people" vote, I think it's a good idea and we should definitely do it that way. It's one panelist that's sure to show up every time, and it keeps the interest of the community alive.

I want to be heard! The people demand a vote!!

lockstep · November 18, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Why don't we just leave the six panelists in place and provide that changes from stock require a majority (4 votes) so there is never a chance of a split deadlocking a proposal?

I can imagine a few instances where this rule WOULD produce some kind of deadlock. E.g., the panelists all agree that some game feature needs to be changed (say, Communism as it was in PtW), there are TWO elaborated, yet outright different proposals how to improve this feature, and the panel is split on these proposals (3-3). The majority rule would result in no change at all, although the panelists DO regard this as the worst solution.

Also, there's the possible case that a new feature (say, wheeled tanks) is included because of a majority (4-2). Later, some exploit involving this feature is discovered (say, Catt manages to fool the AI by roading a mountain chain with a worker SOD in one turn and then striking with his tank force

). One panelist changes his mind and there's a split again (3-3). Now, is this sufficient to retract the feature? (Maybe the panel soon comes up with 'yes' or 'no', but it's a potential controversy.)

So, I'm with Dominae and would prefer an odd number of panelists (even if that would make me drop out) just to keep things simple. An even number plus a public poll (only acting as a tie-breaker) is also acceptable for me, although I'd like to mention the possibility that the public poll results in a tie.

BTW, Catt, considering the dedication you show at these forums you'd really be suited as a panelist.

Tassadar500 · November 18, 2003, 20:29

lockstep that's assuming we use 5 panelists. You and all the other panelists will stay if we use 7.

ZargonX · November 18, 2003, 20:43

I think an odd number of panelists is a must, for the reasons elaborated above. That would eliminate the possibility of a tie vote, barring a panelist abstaining for any reason.

The way I see it, the panel is mostly there to filter the public's desires into a workable final product, not to so much dictate what should be changed based on their views. Do others have a different vision, or are we in agreement?

Stuie · November 19, 2003, 09:51

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep
An even number plus a public poll (only acting as a tie-breaker) is also acceptable for me, although I'd like to mention the possibility that the public poll results in a tie.

I thought this was the point of having a "power of the people" seventh panel seat. In the case of a three/three split from the panelists, you poll the rest of us. That is the best solution in my opinion. Makes me feel more invested in the final outcome, thus encouraging further participation.

Tassadar500 · November 19, 2003, 20:45

I'll just see how this debate plays out

alexman · November 19, 2003, 23:53

Maybe another poll?

Alexander's Horse · November 20, 2003, 00:01

too many mods of the game imo

Tassadar500 · November 20, 2003, 00:05

No one cares about your opinion AH

kring · November 20, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie

I thought this was the point of having a "power of the people" seventh panel seat. In the case of a three/three split from the panelists, you poll the rest of us. That is the best solution in my opinion. Makes me feel more invested in the final outcome, thus encouraging further participation.

I agree