Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
3/4 would be decent.
Discussion on Potential NES and IOT Forum Merger
- Thread starter BSmith1068
- Start date
- Status
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
What reason is there for it not to be a majority past certain people not wanting the merger to happen? If the majority want something to happen yet it still doesn't because there has to be over 70% wanting it to happen then we might as well not have a vote to begin with.
I think 2/3 is by far the most reasonable option.
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
"By majority we voted to merge, by the minority it was decided that this wasn't enough"
If this is being done democratically, at least do it properly.
If this is being done democratically, at least do it properly.
This is democratic.
By analogy it'd be like if a bill passes the House but fails to pass the Senate.
(Some upper houses actually have power, you know)
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
We're talking a fundamental structural overhaul here. In most places, that takes way more than a majority. See: amending the Constitution -- 3/4. With a straight up majority, there's a decent shot that, if the division were straight down forum lines, IOTers would win the vote by virtue of being the larger community, forcing a merge onto the NES forum. That's hypothetical, obviously, as the vote won't be straight down forum lines, but the point still stands.
What if we did two separate polls that both required a yes vote of 2/3 one for NES, one for IOT. That way, neither forum could truly overwhelm the other in agreement.
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
I quite like this idea.
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
North King is correct, we're not passing a bill which can be repealed later, this is a structural change, and deserves a higher degree of support than 50% +1.
If a large enough number of people don't want a merge, merging would alienate so many people it would probably more than negate the benefits of merging in the first place. Therefore a higher burden than simple majority is necessary just to preserve the original intent of the merge.
So all that said, requiring a near-consensus vote is also unfair and undemocratic. I know for example that some people believe the subforums should be kept separate on grounds of community culture, but if much more than half of everyone doesn't actually believe that, maybe it isn't true. If a large majority of people don't believe in the arguments of the NO camp, then it'd be undemocratic to let those arguments win the poll because of a high burden for victory. I would say anything higher than 75% is undemocratic.
Ultimately we're debating what's in the best interest of our hobby, and if everyone is given a substantial amount of time to hear arguments from both sides, nobody should be afraid of putting the victory margin at somewhere between 50 and 75 %.
We are making a big change, but we aren't making a disastrous change if it turns out we made the wrong decision, and so I don't think we should go higher than a supermajority (2/3rds, or 66.6%), which is often the standard for high-burden votes in real life.
If a large enough number of people don't want a merge, merging would alienate so many people it would probably more than negate the benefits of merging in the first place. Therefore a higher burden than simple majority is necessary just to preserve the original intent of the merge.
So all that said, requiring a near-consensus vote is also unfair and undemocratic. I know for example that some people believe the subforums should be kept separate on grounds of community culture, but if much more than half of everyone doesn't actually believe that, maybe it isn't true. If a large majority of people don't believe in the arguments of the NO camp, then it'd be undemocratic to let those arguments win the poll because of a high burden for victory. I would say anything higher than 75% is undemocratic.
Ultimately we're debating what's in the best interest of our hobby, and if everyone is given a substantial amount of time to hear arguments from both sides, nobody should be afraid of putting the victory margin at somewhere between 50 and 75 %.
We are making a big change, but we aren't making a disastrous change if it turns out we made the wrong decision, and so I don't think we should go higher than a supermajority (2/3rds, or 66.6%), which is often the standard for high-burden votes in real life.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Yeah, I just read the whole discussion, and EQ's idea seems the best to me.
As this is getting into discussion specifics on how to conduct a poll on the issue, I'd like to remind everyone of this:
Of course polling each community would be a fine way to find out sentiments, but really if there is real opposition from a sizable number in either of the communities, its not going to happen.
Also discussion the how to do this is nice and all but really what is missing so far is a convincing discussion of why to do this and why to do this now. So far I count 2 posts with substantive reasoning of why or why not - now its well possible that all arguments have been exchanged, but is this truly so?
Of course polling each community would be a fine way to find out sentiments, but really if there is real opposition from a sizable number in either of the communities, its not going to happen.
Also discussion the how to do this is nice and all but really what is missing so far is a convincing discussion of why to do this and why to do this now. So far I count 2 posts with substantive reasoning of why or why not - now its well possible that all arguments have been exchanged, but is this truly so?
Omega124
Challenging Fate
I NESed before I IOT, yet most people (including myself) consider me an IOTer before a NESer. Should I be systematically be labelled a NESer?
I think in this case, if someone self-identifies as a NESer first or an IOTer first, then that is what they are.
IOTer here. Did not want it last vote, still don't want it now.
Personally, I don't even see the need of a vote. If people move to Frontier and are willing to play together there, then there is the merger, naturally done without anyone being forced to move against their will. If the Frontier experiment doesn't work (whether in that we just simply abandon it, or if NESers and IOTers stay largely segregated), then that should be proof enough the concept doesn't work. Either way, the two communities will organically make its decision in the upcoming two or so months.
If we do have a vote regardless, I agree that 66% is probably the best margin of victory for yes. Also only those who played an IOT or NES should have the ability to vote on the issue.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
With the exception that the communities should be allowed to disavow votes of people who shunned the community or who vote for pure trolling purposes. We have several of those who would love to mess with the poll... again.
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
How do you suggest that we weed out "troll votes" without leaving a system open to abuse where people claim others are "trolling" to get votes discounted?
Omega124
Challenging Fate
the best solution would to have a cut-off range of eligibility.
Must have played a NES or IOT within the past year or something.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
NESers work on really long time scales. But, just asking some of the nicer people in the community would solve that problem. We know exactly who is and who isn't active/trolling. We have a database. 
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
I was worried "Take our word for it" would be the answer.
I'd say that the best definition of an IOTer or an NESer for NES purposes would be someone who can prove that they either played in an NES/IOT or moderated an NES/IOT within the four prior to the recent difficulties on September 10. Anyone in that definition seems to be someone who should have a say in any merger.
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Sounds good, but how do we classify people who have done both? It will become rather difficult to separate those, especially with people like CivOasis who have both played in and ran both.
- Status
