Post Your VP Congress Feedback Here!

[InkAxis]

n this case, it was a counterproposal that was much larger than the proposal, and amended with very little time before the closing of the proposal phase. I can't really think of a good way to implement a method to ensure that there is enough time for people to propose counterproposals to counterproposals, given a hard deadline for the Proposal Phase.

I think that we'll have to just ... vote on whether the large counterproposal is a net positive to the game, and then people can create subsequent proposals to change it next session.

I think a good solution would be to give more time.
I also agree with @Stalker0 that 1 month for feedback probably isn't enough.
So, maybe lengthening the periods across the board? Gives more time for more thought out proposals as well.

 

[Rekk]

I think a good solution would be to give more time.

No matter how much time you give, you'll still have counterproposals come in at the last minute. For our first congress, we had a month and a half for proposals, and we still had a counterproposal come in 6 minutes before the deadline.

 

[Deljade]

It seems that we have preference votes which are good.
But some votes concern game balance, I would be cautious with these.

 

[Hokiefan00]

Overall this has been great! I am excited to see where this mod is heading!

One thing I would like to see when something goes to a vote is to have a summary of the prevailing counter argument to the proposal.

I doubt that many voters take the time to read through all 40+ threads and there are most likely some compelling arguments against the proposals that are getting overlooked.

I don’t have a great idea on how to implement such a feature without a ton of work though.

 

[beginner_]

I'd like to hear any feedback (questions, concerns, comments, suggestions) you have on the current system

It really depends on you, the mods and devs but it looks like it requires a huge time effort on your side.

Even I as simple user need to invest a significant amount of time to actually read and vote on proposals. It's likely I can only really participate ever other congress.

Only idea is to limit number of Proposals per session. But that is also kind of a artificial limit as some proposals can be pretty trivial and more complex. Maybe rate them by complexity (in implementation and balance changes) and allow say 3 complex, 7 medium complex and 15 simple proposals very simple are balance tuning possibly from previous proposals

 

[InkAxis]

No matter how much time you give, you'll still have counterproposals come in at the last minute. For our first congress, we had a month and a half for proposals, and we still had a counterproposal come in 6 minutes before the deadline.

Yeah, but at least the first few counter proposals will be more thought out. And extending times also gives more time for feedback.
Also, it might often take a bit of time to get a sponsor. So a counter proposal at the last minute is a lot less likely to get a sponsor, basically only if recursive wants to sponsor it, because someone else noticing in time is unlikely.

 

[Valvts]

I really like it, big thumbs up for organizing it, exciting!

 

[Rekk]

Yeah, but at least the first few counter proposals will be more thought out. And extending times also gives more time for feedback.
Also, it might often take a bit of time to get a sponsor. So a counter proposal at the last minute is a lot less likely to get a sponsor, basically only if recursive wants to sponsor it, because someone else noticing in time is unlikely.

Do you suggest more than a month and a half for proposals, then?

 

[InkAxis]

Do you suggest more than a month and a half for proposals, then?

Sure, or at least it can be longer than it currently is, right now I believe it's the first 15 days of each month. Less frequent votes but for more thought out ideas, at least in theory.

 

[nekokon]

Nah, if you want more thought out idea, make a discussion thread for each idea and duke it out before gathering all proposal/counter proposal. Having multiple proposal/counter proposal with its own discussion is the biggest reason why some important info is lost in the main voting thread since recursive only gather general info from the first post of proposal/counter proposal thread to make poll, not the entire discussion.

More time would help a bit, but generally most ideas are solidified after a few days at most, since a lot of ppl played VP to dead already. The discussion part is mostly for personal experience, aka if someone think that idea with that effect is better in their experience than other ideas, and once ppl all agreed on an idea or agreed on disagreement then those contradict ideas can be used as proposal/counter proposal with all necessary info/explanation.

 

[CppMaster]

Discussion of ideas can happen any time. Only proposals have to be made in 1st half of a month. I prefer as frequent sessions as we have now

 

[InkAxis]

Well you can only make counter proposals during those 15 days. The thing is, many proposals are grouped. As we said, a person will suggest idea XYZ and then someone else will come out saying, actually I would prefer just XY and later someone else just X. This gives more options for what we are voting for and more modifications. Rather than just voting for an entire group of changes that might be too much (or too little), which has already been the case. For example on the nuclear missiles proposal many people support buffing them, but they don't want to change the defense building which is also grouped with that change, ideally someone would make a counter proposal that had that removed. And similarly for the proposals about difficulty. But it applies to any proposals, you'll have more time to add counter proposals and modifications to better fit what the community wants.

 

[josh4]

There are also some changes that the most of community looks forward to be implemented as soon as possible and try them out: like for example granary/lodge/herbalist changes now, among others.

There will always be a lot discontent, no mater for much time proposal will have for discussion.

I think monthly sessions are a perfect time, not to long, not too fast.

 

[InkAxis]

There are also some changes that the most of community looks forward to be implemented as soon as possible and try them out: like for example granary/lodge/herbalist changes now, among others.

There will always be a lot discontent, no mater for much time proposal will have for discussion.

I think monthly sessions are a perfect time, not to long, not too fast.

The amount of proposals would stay the same, and you would have more time to play with them and test them out. Also, currently most of the proposals don't really have counter proposals, so adding a little time would be helpful. Obviously it's never going to be perfect but I'm not claiming it ever will be.

 

[CppMaster]

But it's ok to not have a counterproposal. Sometimes the original proposal is simply good.

 

[Stalker0]

Discussion of ideas can happen any time. Only proposals have to be made in 1st half of a month. I prefer as frequent sessions as we have now

Yep, we are actively debating a number of proposals on discord. In fact I would encourage most proposals to do that, its better to get them out there and get some initial feedback than write up a proposal and go "whoops didn't even think about X"

 

[InkAxis]

But it's ok to not have a counterproposal. Sometimes the original proposal is simply good.

I mean of course but assuming that every proposal is going to be good the first time is.. not a good idea. It could be right the first try, but that's pretty unlikely, so if it isn't there needs to be time for adjustments and feedback. And if it is right first try then this doesn't affect that?

Yep, we are actively debating a number of proposals on discord. In fact I would encourage most proposals to do that, its better to get them out there and get some initial feedback than write up a proposal and go "whoops didn't even think about X"

That's actually a good point. Discord is a good place to get feedback and discuss proposals, I'm used to discord being much more unofficial but now it's an "official" VP thing. So maybe it can be considered as part of the VP Congress, I'm not really sure though. I think more people use CFC, but it's still pretty good.

 

[hokath]

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.

In that case, you won't know how many people have actually looked at the proposal but are ambivalent.
Voting yes and no as a form of abstention is well established. E.g. in the British House of Commons.

p.s. I denounce you.

 

[nekokon]

To me there're a pretty clear/distinctive inuendo between abstain (no vote) or vote for both yes and no.
No vote = don't care about the matter, it can go either ways.
Vote for both = having interest in the matter but the proposed solution is just as bad and we need a better solution.

 

[Stalker0]

That's actually a good point. Discord is a good place to get feedback and discuss proposals, I'm used to discord being much more unofficial but now it's an "official" VP thing. So maybe it can be considered as part of the VP Congress, I'm not really sure though. I think more people use CFC, but it's still pretty good.

I'll admit that when discord first became a thing I was resistant to it over CFC, but frankly I was wrong. Discord is a great forum for fast brainstorming and working ideas back and forth. That said, I do think CFC is better to write down formal proposals once the dust settles. It forces people to slow down and think about what their writing, and I think you get clearer more polished writing on CFC.

Aka the best of both worlds is Discord first for brainstorming, CFC to get the polish.