[Vote] (3-19) Frequency Of VP Congress Sessions

[pineappledan]

The rule would be something like:

A Proposal should only focus on the minimum elements of the mod necessary and should not modify multiple elements unless multiple elements are necessary to make the proposal function. Proposals with more than one element that are not dependent on each other should be split into separate proposals.

But then balance proposals which are focused on reshuffling interlocking bonuses would all be broken up, because they don't strictly depend on each other to exist. It would be hard to understand the overarching aim, and those kinds of proposals aren't worth doing piecemeal.

 

[Stalker0]

But then balance proposals which are focused on reshuffling interlocking bonuses would all be broken up, because they don't strictly depend on each other to exist. It would be hard to understand the overarching aim, and those kinds of proposals aren't worth doing piecemeal.

I agree it’s somewhat subjective and probably best left for a “you know it when you see it” kind of thing where people note it and ask for something to be split when it makes sense to do so.

 

[CppMaster]

I already suggested this long ago on Discord, I dunno why this idea isn't picked up yet.

Probably because it was on Discord

 

[azum4roll]

The rule would be something like:

A Proposal should only focus on the minimum elements of the mod necessary and should not modify multiple elements unless multiple elements are necessary to make the proposal function. Proposals with more than one element that are not dependent on each other should be split into separate proposals.

I'd change the "make the proposal function" part to "make the proposal function while still maintaining balance". Otherwise we may have Iron reveal moved to Iron Working but nothing gets put back onto Bronze Working.

 

[CppMaster]

Imho there is no need for a hard rule to the proposal split. If you only like a part of a big proposal then just do a counterproposal with only the part.

 

[Zuizgond]

That's for the people who implement the changes to decide as all the workload is on their shoulders.

 

[Stalker0]

Imho there is no need for a hard rule to the proposal split. If you only like a part of a big proposal then just do a counterproposal with only the part.

I agree, its probably less of a "hard rule" than a "guideline". Aka if you come across a proposal that can very clearly be split, it should be recommended to Recursive, and that can be handled during the proposal phase. And if the split is strongly disagreed with, then you don't split.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I'm not an active member of this community but have been following the development of the Congress with great interest as it seems an amazing idea. From the perspective of someone in charge of major IT projects and having worked in the industry for decades I think 3 months with time for proper testing makes good sense.

 

[Recursive]

I agree, its probably less of a "hard rule" than a "guideline". Aka if you come across a proposal that can very clearly be split, it should be recommended to Recursive, and that can be handled during the proposal phase. And if the split is strongly disagreed with, then you don't split.

If it bothers a community member to the extent that they want to speak up about it, can they not simply make a counterproposal? That's part of what the Counterproposal Phase is intended for.

The original proposer can also amend their proposal, if they agree.

 

[Stalker0]

If it bothers a community member to the extent that they want to speak up about it, can they not simply make a counterproposal? That's part of what the Counterproposal Phase is intended for.

I mean...you could, but isn't it just cleaner to divide the original proposal into two in the first place and be done with it, rather than add 2 more counterproposals and then having to put it all together in the voting screen. And of course, god help you if some of those proposals get more counterproposals....or if the first proposal is withdrawn and then the counterproposals are technically invalid, etc etc etc.

If a proposer is willing to commit a dev to have to code something for the game, and for you to have to organize that proposal for voting, I think the least you could ask for is to split a proposal that is really 2 in 1. If a person is too lazy to do that, I'm sorry than maybe they shouldn't be making proposals. Now if they feel strongly the original proposal is an "all or nothing" kind of thing, well I leave that to your subjective review.

 

[Siddorm]

I think that the VP Congress is a great success. Good proposals. Lots of engagement. High quality discussions.
Moreover, I trust the wisdom of the voters.
A quarterly schedule will only make it better.

 

[Erion]

My 2 cents... (Sorry for not remembering most names)

Someone voiced concern over the number of proposals increasing with the larger gap between sessions, so in this sense wouldnt larger proposals contribute to have less proposals overall? (ie. 1 large proposal vs 10 small proposals). And sometimes someone may have a great idea that involves changing a number of elements that may or may not be dependent on one another, but if the idea, or proposal, is constructed with good rationale and detail and, of course, if it is feasible for coders, i dont see why put limitations on the scope of what can be suggested

So i like the idea of guidelines instead of hard rules saying what can or cant be proposed, but also think about how all the proposals that have counterproposals to it may lead to a "community proposal" of 2 or more members, that now have ample time to discuss, debate and refine an idea before submitting it. Like a joint proposal of sorts, that may or may not be large, but that could likely be well refined enough pto not even need a counterroposal. And even if it needs one, that could change only a small part of the larger proposal

Well, like i said, just 2 cents. If everything i said is nonsense, please forgive me.

 

[cidk2000]

missed the boat on this one do like Quartly votes and it takes the pressure off the guys and girls programming this thing

 

[Recursive]

The people have spoken! The next session will be in March April.

 

[Dimmy]

Unless my eyes are wrong you mean April? Quarterly congress with next sesh in April as per poll and vote results isn't it?

 

[Recursive]

Unless my eyes are wrong you mean April? Quarterly congress with next sesh in April as per poll and vote results isn't it?

That was embarrassing.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.