Updating the AU mod for C3C.

[alexman]

How does the following solution sound, to ensure that proposed changes are not voted in too quickly, and that everyone has had a chance to think them out and to provide their input?

Originally posted by Dominae

1. Changes are "proposed" and "discussed". This is informal, like we've been doing it.

2. Changes become "under consideration". This means that they will formally go to a vote within the next week or so (whatever), during which time everyone has a final chance to speak their mind.

3. Changes proceed to a "vote", and are "implemented".

I know this sounds a little bureaucratic, but should proceed smoothly in practice.

I personally think that this is a great idea, but until we get a first version of the mod, I would like to see the "under consideration" period shortened to two days. After the C3C 1.10 patch, I really would like to have an AU mod very soon for people to experiment and play epic games, not to mention AU games. After the first version is out, I have no problem increasing it to a week.

[ducki]

It would be nice if all our panelists were given some special pseudo-moderator flag in this forum only so that special voting thread(s) could be opened for (each) proposal(s).
Or if the poll could be put on the discussion thread, but limited to just the panelists.
I'm just trying to figure a way to keep the votes(and the notification that it's voting time) from getting lost in the debate posts.
Maybe too much work, though.

[Dominae]

Changes that are "under consideration" could be flagged (topped/pinned, whatever) in the forum. Therefore anyone could, at a glance, see what issues are currently under review, and not miss out on anything before its too late.


Dominae

[alexman]

We don't have the ability to top threads, but check out the format of the first posts in the topped C3C AU mod thread.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by alexman
We don't have the ability to top threads...

Perhaps some of us should. We could always ask Markos about the feasibility of making a couple AU members moderators for this forum. Maybe that's another duty that the "Dean" and his assistant professor could take on...

[nbarclay]

In my view, unless changes either (1) were included in the PtW version of the mod or (2) have a clear consensus behind them, the "under consideration" period should not be shortened just because we want to get the first C3C version of the mod "out the door." If changes are still controversial or have received no significant discussion at all, they should be deferred until later versions of the mod.

Adding changes from the stock game on an incremental basis from one version of the AU Mod to the next will be a lot less confusing than if we make changes based on just a few days' thought and discussion and then have to pull them back out or change the changes. The fact that so many changes are being presented at once makes adequate consideration even more difficult.

If an idea doesn't have a clear consensus behind it, the change should probably be deferred until a later version of the mod so we have more time to think about it. The default rules aren't bad, and there is nothing wrong with sticking to them while we carefully consider what changes make sense.

Nathan

[Theseus]

Amen.

[ducki]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If an idea doesn't have a clear consensus behind it, the change should probably be deferred

Would giving every new proposal an automatic 1-vote deficit help in delineating those with clear consensus and those without?
With the minimum 5 votes, passage is barely above 50%.
If you start with -1, then you have to have more than 2/3 majority for passage no matter how many voters there are.

Not sure if the plan is to operate solely on a majority vote or to go for unanimity. I think 4/5, 5/6, 5/7 could demonstrate "clear concensus" without require unanimity.

Just a suggestion, ignore at will.

[alexman]

OK, this is the first time, so we are still figuring out how to make this thing work. Sorry if I rushed things. From now on, we will allow one week between the time a clear yes/no proposal is formulated, to the time a vote is called for. See the "Method" section of the C3C AU mod thread.

For this time only: please post here the issues you feel do not have a clear consensus behind them, and we will mark them as "under consideration" and vote again in a week from when the proposal was made.

I'm guessing one of them is the ToE-Hoover beeline. Any others?

[ducki]

As much as I would like it in the mod, there seems to be some fairly strong debate on whether the previous exclusion of a Victorious Army for Military Academy would be C3C balanced. There are at least two panel members that are strongly against it, so I feel it should be further discussed.