Discussion on Potential NES and IOT Forum Merger

[J.K. Stockholme]

If a poll could be arranged which restricted the vote to a usergroup which was registered through the identification process I described above, sure that'd work. If we wanted an anonymous vote that'd probably be ideal, but if there isn't a demand for an anonymous vote, then I think an in-thread vote would be equally democratic.

@DoubleA: it'd be nice of you if you would provide a reason why my rather simple procedure is at all complicated or paranoid. I can demonstrate how easy it is: boom, I can vote.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Yes a ID check would be most required to ensure the vote is a IOT-NES matter.

Secret ballot may give more transparency to peoples personnel voting. However a poll with restrictions through user group may be good as well.

 

[Thlayli]

If we're considering a new poll on this issue, we need to first or simultaneously have polls on the issues of a moderator for the NES forum and a forum-wide poll on the PDMA rules.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Has there even been an NESer who is willing to be a moderator that would meet the rigorous requirements (demands) imposed by those who want an NESer moderator? You have even stated yourself you're not that eager to do so.

 

[Zack]

Why not just PM your vote to a moderator or unbiased third-party? It's not like a vBulletin poll is the only way to vote on something.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

@Zack: Because accountability is another important characteristic of democracy, and on the assumption that there isn't a demand for a secret ballot, it'd be best to both have a voter registration system and a public voting area for full transparency of each vote. If there was a need for an anonymous system things would get a lot more complicated than just sending a PM to a moderator - the recent crisis of faith in NES is from perceptions of moderator unfairness. It's totally doable, but it's certainly not as simple as you assume if we want to instill legitimacy in a referendum.

 

[spryllino]

Has there even been an NESer who is willing to be a moderator that would meet the rigorous requirements (demands) imposed by those who want an NESer moderator? You have even stated yourself you're not that eager to do so.

I'm sure that there aren't all that many suitable people, who, if people really wanted them to, would absolutely categorically refuse to help their fellow NESers by doing it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why not just PM your vote to a moderator or unbiased third-party? It's not like a vBulletin poll is the only way to vote on something.

@Zack: Because accountability is another important characteristic of democracy, and on the assumption that there isn't a demand for a secret ballot, it'd be best to both have a voter registration system and a public voting area for full transparency of each vote. If there was a need for an anonymous system things would get a lot more complicated than just sending a PM to a moderator - the recent crisis of faith in NES is from perceptions of moderator unfairness. It's totally doable, but it's certainly not as simple as you assume if we want to instill legitimacy in a referendum.

Here's a suggestion for combining a secret ballot with trusting the vote-counting process. It's a procedure I used on another forum for a much more complex vote (multiple categories with many options, for a forum-wide awards ceremony). VBulletin isn't set up for that kind of complicated voting, so here's how we did it:

We had a committee of three vote counters. Each person who voted did so via PM. They had to submit their PMs simultaneously to all three committee members. At the close of polling, all three committee members counted the ballots and compared numbers. If all three matched in every way, great. If not, we did a recount. And it worked beautifully.

For a three-person vote-counting committee in this case, I would suggest that one person be the moderator for that forum (staff representative), one person be a member of the NES community, and the third be a completely unbiased neutral person from somewhere else on the forum - someone with absolutely no stake in the issue and no opinion one way or the other. Votes to be PM'd to all three at once (the PM system allows this), and for the final count to be official, all three tallies have to agree.

That's the fairest suggestion I can offer.

 

[Luckymoose]

Under such a system, I would like to be the NESer to count the votes.

 

[Zack]

Why is there an NESer on this hypothetical committee but no IOTer?

 

[Luckymoose]

Why is there an NESer on this hypothetical committee but no IOTer?

Because the question is: Should IOT be merged into NES? The IOTers want it, but the NESers haven't agreed.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

No, the question is, should the two forums be merged, it's a thing of equals.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why is there an NESer on this hypothetical committee but no IOTer?

My apologies for overlooking IOT! I have to admit to not being entirely aware of all the issues in this matter (I've been seeing the NES pov for the most part). Of course if it's a merger vote, IOT should also be represented. Committee of four vote-counters, then: 1 moderator to represent staff, 1 NES member, 1 IOT member, and 1 member-at-large who has no stake whatsoever in the outcome and is therefore completely impartial. The PM system allows up to 5 people to be PM'd simultaneously with the same message, so that would still work.

But keep in mind that I'm just making suggestions as to how this could most easily work. I'm not part of either community here, but I do know something of how vBulletin systems can be used.

It's ultimately the staff's decision how to handle this matter; I'm just suggesting what I think is the easiest way to do it, if they decide to allow a vote.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Secret Ballots? Approval Processes? Counting Committees? Ravus almighty!

I mean I'm not saying this isn't important and I'm not trying to be offensive, but I think that everyone is taking this way too seriously. We're not exactly deciding the fate of Scotland here.

If we wanted to have a vote, we'd just have a public poll with a clear "YES" and "NO" option. No hassle no fuss. We discount the obvious troll votes and take it from there.

Also I really doubt a vote is going to do anything as the Admins aren't probably even going to consider a merger unless the vote is at least 90% in YES' favour. And that's not going to be happening any time soon.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

Secret Ballots? Approval Processes? Counting Committees? Ravus almighty!

I mean I'm not saying this isn't important and I'm not trying to be offensive, but I think that everyone is taking this way too seriously. We're not exactly deciding the fate of Scotland here.

If we wanted to have a vote, we'd just have a public poll with a clear "YES" and "NO" option. No hassle no fuss. We discount the obvious troll votes and take it from there.

Also I really doubt a vote is going to do anything as the Admins aren't probably even going to consider a merger unless the vote is at least 90% in YES' favour. And that's not going to be happening any time soon.

I'm a little shocked you forgot what happened to the last poll that was done to the bare standards you've suggested seeing as you made the thread. It was, as far as I can tell, a giant mess. I'm shocked because that was what spawned my (extremely valid) criticisms and why I have been suggesting simple and straightforward ways of significantly increasing the legitimacy of any potential future referendum on the subject.

We don't need to be deciding the fate of Scotland for something to have emotional value to people. If people are invested in something and its a decision that we agree needs to be made democratically, then we should pull out every stop we possibly can to make it maximally inclusive and maximally democratic.

And nothing I've suggested so far costs money, or really requires that much effort. We can easily manage this, I don't know why you'd cast doubt on what are fundamentally necessary and good things for any potential referendum on the subject. I'd be downright excited about the idea of setting a democratic precedent for the CFC at large.

As far as I'm concerned the debate isn't about whether we should or shouldn't do everything we feasibly can to maximize the inclusiveness of such a referendum, but what specific mechanisms are maximally democratic.

 

[Ailedhoo]

A decision on NES and IOT may end up coming aside from the PDMA issues; trying to require the PDMA to come first would be diverting the debate on the merge.

Any pole must be indeed be fully organized as Stockholm stated. A simple thread pole will be too easy to abuse; anyway who can make the "troll votes" from the actual votes in a normal thread pole? If a referendum becomes the means of deciding the fate of the purposed merge then we need to make sure it is as fair as possible, which means restricting to NESers and IOTers as well as accounting those who are keeping a account in CFC in light of the mass migration.

As for results: I think over 90% would be too high a mark; it should be around 50% quarter, with too close results allowing the Supreme Court/moderation to evaluate, akin to a democratic election. Yes this may appear "too serious" but it would be much better than placing the goal post too high. Plus IOT and NES are fans of political activity, so why not determine our fates by one?

Whatever the case I must make it clear in my support of a yes vote that merging the NES and IOT forum will not "destroy the heritage" of either; the heritage will be preserved for future world builders/armchair emperors/whatever-thy-name-for-the-merged-forum-members to admire. NES and IOT will continue their legacy. What will happen is hence a identity to be added that unites them all, one which ensures a united kingdom of creating worlds to play in. I hence support making access to both types of games more convenient, that instead of "us vs them" we dance in a circle of peace akin to those corny images of people holding hands around the world. We will have the key to a new dawn, a key towards the evolution of our world building games. In this end... we will become one united whole that is at the same time many diverse and wonderful things.

To quote the official motto of the European Union: unity in diversity.

 

[North King]

You know plenty of real democracies have voting threshholds above 50% for certain things.

 

[Luckymoose]

90% or no go.

 

[Ailedhoo]

90% or no go.

51% and above is the democratic necessity, while between 50-60% reasonable to be a mod obverse for practical notions if need be. 90% is unreasonably unpractical.

 

[SouthernKing]

Would people accept a 2/3 or 3/4 majority? I agree that we need something stronger than a simple majority because of fun things like margins of error, but 90% is absurd.