[Vote] (7-90) Lower Supermajority Vote Threshold From 70% To Two-Thirds (66.67%)

[Zuizgond]

So we use supermajority to vote on supermajority threshold, ok...

 

[4CV]

So we use supermajority to vote on supermajority threshold, ok...

Of course, what else?

 

[usadefcon1]

So we use supermajority to vote on supermajority threshold, ok...

The last vote had 80% approval vs less than 60% on this one.

 

[msw1]

The current vote has 66.67% approval. Abstaining votes don't count.

 

[Recursive]

We seem to be sticking exactly at a 2:1 (2/3rds) vote on this thread, which is kind of funny.

 

[KungCheops]

2/3 with a little bit of margin is enough, which is 70%. It'd snowball if we kept reducing the threshold.

slippery slope fallacy

 

[Stalker0]

The dev time required is immense for each of these changes. It makes perfect sense to make sure almost everyone is happy with it before doing work.

It should also be noted that sponsorship is still required before these kind of changes are implemented. So at least 1 dev (perhaps several depending on the complexity of the request) still have to agree to do the work before the voting happens.

If the devs don't want to implement something, either because its too much work or they just don't like it....it doesn't happen, regardless of how interested the larger community might be.

 

[Rompersenor]

I would love VP to be a conservative project that fixes things but not overwhelms with content. A "go to mod" for when I meet an old friend and say: "You still play civ 5? Nice, get VP, it's much better but not that much more complicated." Therefore, Nay.

 

[CppMaster]

Huh? I'd say it is complicated. More complicated than Vanilla for sure. VP is not chosen by players, because it's simple, lol.

 

[Rompersenor]

Huh? I'd say it is complicated. More complicated than Vanilla for sure. VP is not chosen by players, because it's simple, lol.

Agreed, bad choice of words, I meant not so much more complicated than vanilla And that is a good thing.

"new civilizations, new eras, new policy trees, the integration of 4UC" is something to be done by additional mods imho

 

[Recursive]

Well, the votes are in, and the community's opinions have been gauged!

We are at 63 Yea, 33 Nay. That is 65.625% in favor.

I feel like lowering the threshold to 2:1 if the vote to lower it didn't get 2:1 in favor of doing so is a questionable logic. There's a significant minority of players (34.375%, more than a third) who don't want it to be that easy to make major changes.

In comparison, only 14.159% had a problem with the 70% threshold, a very broad consensus.

Additionally, 2/3rds has 63 people for and 33 people against. The Nay voters are equal to 52.38% of the Yea voters, with 30 more players voting Yea than Nay.

For 70%, we have 97 people for and 16 people against. The Nay voters are equal to 16.49% of the Yea voters, with 81 more players voting Yea than Nay.

The dev time required is immense for each of these changes. It makes perfect sense to make sure almost everyone is happy with it before doing work.

It should also be noted that sponsorship is still required before these kind of changes are implemented. So at least 1 dev (perhaps several depending on the complexity of the request) still have to agree to do the work before the voting happens.

If the devs don't want to implement something, either because its too much work or they just don't like it....it doesn't happen, regardless of how interested the larger community might be.

I'm also swayed by azum4roll's argument here. It's a lot of work to implement most of these kinds of changes with our limited dev resources, so making sure almost everyone is happy with it prior to implementation is a good idea.

Furthermore, a supermajority vote requires sponsorship, but the problem is that removing it would also require sponsorship and a supermajority vote in favor.

In particular, I want to avoid these two scenarios.

Scenario 1:

1. A large overhaul barely passes a 2:1 vote.
2. After playtesting, it turns out to be less fun than anticipated, a significant minority (enough to bring it below 2:1) don't like the change and want it reversed, or perhaps even a majority if there was a major miscalculation.
3. It requires a 2:1 vote in favor of removing it, which is nigh unattainable.
4. The issue has to be resolved by executive fiat (making a lot of people unhappy), by adding multiple modes of gameplay, draining dev resources, or by leaving it in over the objections of a significant minority of players, driving non-modmodders away.

Scenario 2:

1. Same as point 1 above, but it passes in part because one particular dev really pushes for that change.
2. Same as point 2 above.
3. The votes are there to undo the change, but no dev is willing to do all the work required to remove it. This is especially problematic if other code changes were then built on top of the major overhaul, requiring a lot of time and effort for (probably me) to undo it.

A 70% threshold makes either of these significantly less likely than a 2/3rds threshold (namely because to reach 70% the community will almost certainly have a lot of understanding of and experience with the changes being proposed), and the community is much more broadly in favor of a 70% threshold.

I'm also satisfied based on the events vote that a 70% threshold is reasonably achievable for changes which are broadly popular in the community. When the cheater's votes and the one person who voted for both (forgot to make it single choice) are excluded, the vote was 79 to 28 in favor, but it failed as the 75% threshold (which I arbitarily chose) necessitated 84 votes in favor.

With a 70% threshold, only 66 votes would have been necessary for it to pass, and it got 13 more than that requirement. However, I will not be undoing that outcome retroactively, as promised.

There is also something to be said for new players' experience - Vox Populi already requires a substantial learning curve from its players. A broad consensus requirement for big changes makes it more likely that any big changes added are well-balanced and well-polished for new users.

Finally, I feel like a 70% threshold is more faithful to Gazebo's original vision for the project. Modmods still exist, and will always be welcome.

Based on all of this, I believe the most equitable solution is for the threshold to stay at 70% (down from 75%). This will be the new threshold for supermajority votes going forward. I understand not everyone will be happy with this, but 85.84% of you are glad about the reduction to 70%.

As explained above with the events vote, a significant amount of flexibility has definitely been added to Vox Populi for the benefit of the majority. At a 70% threshold, I also believe the minority still exercise about the right amount of sway to avoid the two scenarios I mentioned above and to ensure broad community consensus for big changes.

Take care, everyone!

 

[Recursive]

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