Post Your VP Congress Feedback Here!

[Recursive]

Now that the voting phase is underway and all proposals are posted, I would like to reach out to the community. What do you think of the new VP Congress System?

Note: If you're having trouble seeing all of the proposals, you can filter using the [Vote] prefix and sort by title, as shown here:

Spoiler :

In my opinion, the implementation has not been perfect, but for a pilot test it's gone pretty well.

I was originally planning to move all of the 100+ pages of old threads to the Archive subforum to de-clutter the main forum first, but I didn't have the time this month. I still plan to do this.

I'd like to hear any feedback (questions, concerns, comments, suggestions) you have on the current system and how it could be improved. I will use the feedback gained here to improve the second session.

 

[CppMaster]

You've already mention my biggest isuue:

I was originally planning to move all of the 100+ pages of old threads to the Archive subforum to de-clutter the main forum first, but I didn't have the time this month. I still plan to do this.

But overall this is great! Good job!

 

[balparmak]

I was going to say it needs some tweaks, particularly a sub-forum for vote threads instead of having them on the main forum. Then again, the first congress is much likely to be an exception, we won't have this many proposals in the next sessions and having them on the main will be good for visibility, so it's all great, thanks!

 

[Cebrudras]

One thing I would appreciate is if someone created a list of close votes near the end of the period. Right now it feels overwhelming and I would rather just look at that smaller selection where votes make more of a difference.

 

[XSamatan]

A central thread listing all polls could help, then you would be able to move the polls in a sub-forum of the congress.

Regards
XSamatan

 

[CppMaster]

Recursive already took care of it:

Note: If you're having trouble seeing all of the proposals, you can filter using the [Vote] prefix and sort by title, as shown here:
Spoiler :
[IMG alt="Filters.png"]https://forums.civfanatics.com/attachments/filters-png.642270/[/IMG]

 

[Slyceth]

Aww I missed it, is it still possible for me to show add a proposal? Have all proposals been posted or have you filtered any out?

My proposal: A button to make all cities work on the world congress project and turn back when you got exactly 50% done.

 

[Slyceth]

I've encountered a huge problem with these proposals, and that is that voting is based on the exact question that is asked, like take the city state gifting units proposals, I had a completely different idea on how to implement it but the votes have already been cast on the original proposal, while there might be an even better option that could be voted on. On top of that, all these changes should be either supported by data, or manual tools to give each player so they can adjust their experience where fit, because the opinions of the 24% of "Nay" voters still matters, because they probably pressed "Yay" on another proposal, while both proposals could be implemented in a way that lets you toggle these in-game.

 

[tyranthym]

I found most of the proposals propose too many changes. In almost all multi-change proposals i agreed some items but disagreed others. Also even I agree some changes, I don't like the values they are proposing, We need some discussion and the ability to adjust the values during the voting period, otherwise it's hard to vote just yes or no and it doesn't help much on actually balancing the game even the idea is good. Cause the result is still based on just one person - the proposer.

 

[CppMaster]

I found most of the proposals propose too many changes. In almost all multi-change proposals i agreed some items but disagreed others. Also even I agree some changes, I don't like the values they are proposing, We need some discussion and the ability to adjust the values during the voting period, otherwise it's hard to vote just yes or no

Just vote yes if not ideal proposal is still better than not doing it at all and vote no otherwise.

 

[tyranthym]

Yes I may vote yes this time, but it's good if the proposal is passed and we have a further poll probably on each item and a proposed value if necessary

 

[psparky]

Overall a huge success, congratulations!

I do have a couple of reservations.

Several of the proposals have multiple changes in the same proposal, with only a yes/no vote. Sometimes they are clearly linked, but not always. A good example of the latter is (2) Units Should only Heal at +5HP Within the Borders of a Revolting City. I agree with the idea stated in the title, but not the extra part - If the city is being Razed units within the borders of the city would heal at +20 HP (looting). I think these should be separate proposals or perhaps options that can be voted on separately. While I was voting I had this sort of dilemma on several occasions - (3) regarding nuclear weapons was another one.

[I'm concerned about human abuse of the looting proposal, like raze for a couple of turns to heal my army, then stop. Also, I am doubtful if the AI will be able to use it effectively]

My second concern is for the ratification phase. There are so many big changes that look likely to be made simultaneously (happiness, tech cost, policy reworks, etc, etc.) that it will be very difficult to decide whether a particular change was good or should be reverted. But we will see!

​

 

[youngsteve]

I like the system but thought & would have liked the proposals to vote on in a section in Congress forum, so it didn't clog up all the general posts.

 

[Rekk]

I've encountered a huge problem with these proposals, and that is that voting is based on the exact question that is asked, like take the city state gifting units proposals, I had a completely different idea on how to implement it but the votes have already been cast on the original proposal, while there might be an even better option that could be voted on. On top of that, all these changes should be either supported by data, or manual tools to give each player so they can adjust their experience where fit, because the opinions of the 24% of "Nay" voters still matters, because they probably pressed "Yay" on another proposal, while both proposals could be implemented in a way that lets you toggle these in-game.

Make a proposal next proposal phase. Just because something is being voted on this session doesn't mention that a new version can't be voted on next session.

Almost all changes end up being modifiable via SQL. Learn how to do that and you can tweak the game to your liking.

 

[youngsteve]

Can I ask why certain people are voting yes/no to the same proposals. I even saw Recursive do it in the last one I voted in. Very strange.

 

[CppMaster]

Can I ask why certain people are voting yes/no to the same proposals. I even saw Recursive do it in the last one I voted in. Very strange.

So it reaches minimum number of votes, but they are fine with both options.

 

[akasha27]

How about creating a sub forum inside the Congress Forum to group all the voting posts?

 

[XSamatan]

We need some discussion and the ability to adjust the values during the voting period

Absolutely no!

Not every person checks the forum daily/hourly and would be able to adjust their vote accordingly to the newest numbers.
Every proposal was already discussed for several weeks, if you did not take part in that process it's on you. The proposals are "take it or leave it". Don't forget either that voting will now happen monthly...so any change that is not liked by a majority will be reverted.

Regards
XSamatan

 

[Stalker0]

Part of me worries we are collecting feedback a bit too soon, as we haven't finished a vote or had even one ratification phase yet (I think ratification is really important to curb some of the "excesses" we may get from the system).

But since we are here, my thoughts so far.


The Amazing Good
Considering this is our first run of this (a pilot effectively), honestly, I don't think it could have gone better. The issues have been minor and were worked out quickly, all of the early vetoes were reasonable to me, we are seeing major participation on both the proposal and voting fronts, to me its been a big win so far.

The Recursive Bottleneck
One of my fears is that this looks like a tremendous effort on Recursive's part. A lot of organization, review, retitling, moving of threads, etc. I am worried about burnout longterm with this process, or simply the process grinding to a halt should Recursive go on a break or a vacation for a while. While I want to create the most organized and efficient process we can, at the end of the day it has to be sustainable. That might mean less polish and less organization.

The "Rider" Problem
I don't mind large proposals with multiple parts....within reason. For example, making multiple changes to a policy tree at the same time is fine to me, its all "in theme". I do think there have been proposals that ask for X and Y, and Y has NOTHING to do with X. This similar to riders in the US congress, where bills are passed to do a thing, and people slip in a little cheddar for their own interests that has nothing to do with the original bill. I want to curb that whenever possible, so I do think we should focus on keeping proposals as close to their "true intention" as possible. If you want to make a change to skirmishers...don't be tossing in changes to recon units. If you want to change a building, don't throw in a CS change in the same proposal....etc etc.

Ratification - Is 1 month enough time?
This is a wait to be seen, but I am a bit concerned that 1 month is not enough time to do proper ratification. Not everyone plays as fast as I do Some people won't even play 1 game in a month. We may need to extend this to a few months to ensure people are actually playing with these changes before they give feedback.

Multi-choice Yes/No votes
I can respect the multi-choice for proposals with multiple options. But I think its really weird to have a yes/no vote that you can vote on both. If you want to abstain....don't vote.

Proposal Freezes
I'm already seeing a lot of calls to open up more time for changes and amendments. During the voting phase, during the sponsorship phase, etc. I STRONGLY urge us to resist these temptations. I think it is VITAL to the new process that our more casual forum goers and developers get a dedicated time that they can review things and vote with the confidence that they can go away for a few weeks, and what they voted on remains as is. We need to respect that there will be people who literally swing by the forum once a month, do all of their voting, and then return to the shadows.

I get that people are excited, and the idea of waiting another month "seems so long", but realistically, this is LIGHTNING fast compared to what we do now. Because right now its all up in the air, you have an idea, maybe it gets some attention, maybe it doesn't, maybe we do a poll....realistically most ideas right now take a lot longer than a month to get through. The idea that you can come up with an idea and have a definitive answer on whether it will go into the mod in less than a month is MUCH faster than we operate now.

A dedicated voting forum
I think we should have a dedicated forum for this. Yes we will have less proposals in the future, but I think its disruptive to other more casual threads. I get it takes away the proposals from the main page, but frankly, if people can't be bothered to check out 1 subforum to vote....they shouldn't be voting.

Enforcement
One elephant in the room, what happens in a scenario where a dev decides they don't like the proposal they are coding. Maybe they make a slight change to the proposal in their code to make it more like what they want, or maybe they just keep pushing it off for implementation (aka the classic the president doesn't enforce a new law, so it effectively "dies"). Ultimately this is something for the devs to work out amongst themselves, ultimately they have to do a bit of this today anyway, but its something in the back of my mind. Or...perhaps long term the answer is "sponsorship does mean a dev is interested in your change". If ultimately we are proposing a bunch of things that the dev team doesn't like...that probably won't serve us long term (after all they have to be code AND maintain those changes). Perhaps it would be better if sponsorship was more discerning.

 

[CppMaster]

This is a wait to be seen, but I am a bit concerned that 1 month is not enough time to do proper ratification. Not everyone plays as fast as I do Some people won't even play 1 game in a month. We may need to extend this to a few months to ensure people are actually playing with these changes before they give feedback.

I think that one month is plenty for testing. A proposal to revert the change can be submitted anyway, so I don't see a problem here.

One elephant in the room, what happens in a scenario where a dev decides they don't like the proposal they are coding. Maybe they make a slight change to the proposal in their code to make it more like what they want, or maybe they just keep pushing it off for implementation (aka the classic the president doesn't enforce a new law, so it effectively "dies"). Ultimately this is something for the devs to work out amongst themselves, ultimately they have to do a bit of this today anyway, but its something in the back of my mind. Or...perhaps long term the answer is "sponsorship does mean a dev is interested in your change". If ultimately we are proposing a bunch of things that the dev team doesn't like...that probably won't serve us long term (after all they have to be code AND maintain those changes). Perhaps it would be better if sponsorship was more discerning.

That would be unfair from the dev. I hope it won't happen. I believe in devs integrity and also that's why there are pull requests on Github. Requiring the dev to agree with the proposal would make it harder to get a sponsor ship, so I'm against the requirement.