OT Reorganization - Vote now.

[Valka D'Ur]

Why exactly shouldn't my opinion matter?

Your opinion has already been counted in the staff forum (at least I presume it has, in the discussions you would have participated in). By voting in this poll, you (whichever of the staff voted) are stacking the deck in favor of your own preferences in how you'll end up moderating whatever kind of OT is the result of this exercise. That's hardly neutral.

 

[ori]

As I already stated: they do not mean yes and they do not mean no - why should we count them on either of the two sides?

 

[metatron]

Hopefully, we are all wiser now and things will go along just fine.

You tried the RD thing and it didn't work.
Why do you suppose it will work now? What do you want to do differently this time?

[...]

See above.
What do you intend to do this time, that you didn't do the first two or three months RD were around in the old OT?
What do you intend to do this time, that you didn't do the first two or three months the Chamber existed?

5char

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As I already stated: they do not mean yes and they do not mean no - why should we count them on either of the two sides?

I never said you should! They are their own sides.

 

[ori]

Yeah - so we will look at these votes as one of three options - of course if the ayes have it with an outright majority that is easy (as it looks right now) - if its a plurality we'll have to decide what to do.

Re: Staff voting: there is absolutely no reason to disallow staff votes, yes their opinion entered into internal discussion but that is besides the point they are just as much users of this site as others and they do not need to remain neutral at all with regards to organization - there should be impartiality with regards to moderation, not with regards to using this site.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes everyone can vote and should vote. If you don't vote, you will go on our short list of trouble makers that we keep an eye on.

I voted, so that list should be one shorter.

 

[plastiqe]

Some of the Red Diamond threads are very good. I can recognize their quality, even if I don't happen to find them personally interesting, or if I know I don't have the knowledge to make useful contributions to them.

I'm not saying they aren't. The quantifiable difference is that it will take more time to read and write well thought out posts in RD threads. So in a unified forum if I was writing one liners and you were responding to RD threads with well thought out paragraphs, the sheer volume of quick, easy Tavern posts could drown the RD threads.

There is also the point metatron is talking about. For better or worse there is a division on CivFanatics between 'fun' OT threads and the serious ones. I personally wouldn't want to flip flop on an issue that a lot of people seem to care about.

 

[Rashiminos]

No, on the account that RD threads in the Tavern would frequently be double-threads.

Also, down with the star-travelers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

5char

Well, I hope that some of us have improved ourselves over the past year or so or perhaps some have matured or even grown out of previous behaviors. Just because RD threads did not live up their potential then doesn't mean they won't or can't now. I hope you will contribute to their success in the future.

I voted, so that list should be one shorter.

Many thanks for lightening our load good sir.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you subtract one moderator vote from any of the possible choices, the current overwhelmingly "yes" sentiment is not diminished in the least.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's not the point. My point is that we don't know if the moderator voted because of a perceived "this will be easier to moderate than that way regardless of what the regular members may want" bias.

 

[azzaman333]

That's not the point. My point is that we don't know if the moderator voted because of a perceived "this will be easier to moderate than that way regardless of what the regular members may want" bias.

Except that doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the validity of the vote either way.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why shouldn't moderators vote based on their preference?

As long as they don't get extra-special-double-plus weighted votes, I say I want moderators to voice their preference. Apart from being moderators they are very much part of the community.

 

[plastiqe]

Why shouldn't moderators vote based on their preference?

As long as they don't get extra-special-double-plus weighted votes, I say I want moderators to voice their preference. Apart from being moderators they are very much part of the community.

I agree, it's nice to hear from their point of view - or anyone else that is invested in the community. But.. well... the moderators do get to pick what we're voting on and write the pro-yes opening post. On CFC they're Legislative and Judicial.

Anyways, voting in polls is the lowest form of forum participation, even less that simply typing 'I agree'.

 

[Camikaze]

The nature of a system in which you have agenda-setters is that those agenda-setters do get to set the agenda as close to their ideal point as is viable. It also pays to remember that agenda-setters don't propose changes to the status quo unless such a change would be closer to their ideal point.

I disagree with the idea that moderators shouldn't vote in this poll, though, because although I have already had a say in what's proposed, a poll of the CFC community shouldn't demand the exclusion of a portion of it. My vote would likely be based on whether I'd enjoy the proposed alternative more than the status quo, and that would necessarily take into consideration the ease of moderation under the competing systems, just as others will take into consideration matters specific to their personal enjoyment of the set-ups (e.g. some people might like whichever option allows them more freedom to troll).

Ascribing a fiduciary character to moderators is misplaced.

I haven't yet voted in this poll, BTW.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why shouldn't moderators vote based on their preference?

As long as they don't get extra-special-double-plus weighted votes, I say I want moderators to voice their preference. Apart from being moderators they are very much part of the community.

If they're voting based on what would be good for the membership, that's one thing. If they're voting based on what's been agreed on in the staff forum would be preferable for the staff (hypothetical, since I don't actually know what's been agreed on there, if anything has), that's a totally different thing, and it's not conducive to actually finding out what the regular members want - which was the point of this poll in the first place, I thought.

@Camikaze: I disagree that it is "misplaced" to wonder what the actual motives are behind moderators voting in a poll that was set up to ask what the regular members want. You are not a regular member. Therefore, if you were to vote, I'd be wondering if you're voting for what you would consider enjoyable for yourself and others, or if you'd be voting based on purely staff considerations. It's possible that not everyone would necessarily have the "enjoyment of the members" in mind when voting.

 

[Camikaze]

If they're voting based on what would be good for the membership, that's one thing. If they're voting based on what's been agreed on in the staff forum would be preferable for the staff (hypothetical, since I don't actually know what's been agreed on there, if anything has), that's a totally different thing, and it's not conducive to actually finding out what the regular members want - which was the point of this poll in the first place, I thought.

Are you basing your vote on what would be good for the membership, or on what you'd enjoy more (which may include a consideration of what is good for the membership)?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd have bigger issues with drive-by voters who rarely visit CFC than moderators who are actively involved.

If I had to have an issue.

My biggest issue is with having the poll at al. The april fools split didn't have one either and as Ori pointed out, people already voted with their posts.

 

[plastiqe]

Cami, Valk did say what s/he was basing thier No vote on:

Spoiler :

Some of the Red Diamond threads are very good. I can recognize their quality, even if I don't happen to find them personally interesting, or if I know I don't have the knowledge to make useful contributions to them.

Okay, I voted. I note the poll is not public, so I will give the rationale for my vote: No. I voted No because there wasn't an option to say I was undecided without being tossed in with the apathetic "don't care" crowd. I care very much about this. And since I'm opposed to A&E being merged with any sort of OT (whatever you want to call it), I don't want people to say, "Well, you didn't vote against merging the Tavern and Chamber, so what's the problem?"

The nature of a system in which you have agenda-setters is that those agenda-setters do get to set the agenda as close to their ideal point as is viable. It also pays to remember that agenda-setters don't propose changes to the status quo unless such a change would be closer to their ideal point.

So to surmise here you're saying agenda-setters (mods) get to do what they want to do. I'll try to phrase this carefully because I don't want to step on any toes but again, as an outsider looking in, I notice a lot of the us vs them mentality on the CFC forums. Doesn't have to be that way. For example, instead of using private forums where the referendum is decided on, you could have posted that thread here or used something like the long neglected CFC Rules Discussion Group.

 

[The_J]

If the whole OT community can't overvote some 30 or so moderators, then OT has probably bigger problems than the split ^^.