Term 6 Election - Designated Players

[Sigma]

Donovan Zoi,

I'm currently in the process of proposing an amendment to revamp our Designated Player Pool. It includes giving the President more power and resposibility in managing the DP's, and also a process of removing a DP from the pool. I'm waiting for the next term Judiciary to take the next step since we're so close to the end of the term.

Unfortunately, accountability only goes so far. We can't kick anyone out of the demogame (unless they violate the forum rules). We can't ban someone from running for office. All we can do is keep holding elections, and just vote to not re-elect any DP's who break the rules.

Sure it may not seem like more than a slap on the wrist, but the "humiliation" of being removed from office, or being one of the few DP's to not be elected, is punishment enough. And as long as these elections don't slow the game down (they're the same time as other elections, and have no tiebreakers), we have no reason to get rid of them.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Thanks for the quick response, Sigma.

My call for an end to the DP election was more of a wake-up call to the people to put some thought into who they are voting for. I actually like the changes you have proposed and look forward to the upcoming discussion. I hope I can make myself available.

For the record, I voted for 6 of the 7 listed here, so my bark may be a bit worse than my bite. It's just that after nearly four years at this, I grow tired of watching one particular cycle repeat itself again and again and again and.........

 

[Vind2]

On second thought i might have not voted for my self

 

[Sigma]

This poll has closed, but there seems to be a discrepancy in the numbers, so I cannot validate the poll at this time.

There were 26 total votes. 4 of those were abstain votes, yet GeorgeOP managed to receive 24 votes. This doesn't quite add up. I'm sure it was someone who checked all the boxes, but just to be sure we may need an investigation.

However, even if you subtract 4 (the abstain votes) from the total vote count and each candidate's vote total, every candidate still has over 50% of the vote, with Vind2 receiving the least at 12 out of 22. Therefore, I believe that all seven candidates were elected, even with the discrepancy.

 

[Vind2]

Some people may have also clicked abstain accidentaly.

 

[DaveShack]

For the record, I voted for 6 of the 7 listed here, so my bark may be a bit worse than my bite. It's just that after nearly four years at this, I grow tired of watching one particular cycle repeat itself again and again and again and.........

Is that the cycle of DZ jumping on a soapbox yelling about a supposed problem and then fades away after a few weeks, only to show up on a soapbox a few months later?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[BCLG100]

Some people may have also clicked abstain accidentaly.

i did, then unclicked it before i voted.

 

[Swissempire]

Poor Abstain, only got 15%

 

[ice2k4]

If this does have to go to another poll, count me out. If not leave me in.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Is that the cycle of DZ jumping on a soapbox yelling about a supposed problem and then fades away after a few weeks, only to show up on a soapbox a few months later?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

None taken, Dave. It's the only fun I get lately.

I'll try to be a bit more de-, um, constructive this time out.

 

[Sigma]

If this does have to go to another poll, count me out. If not leave me in.

I do not intend to post another poll. But even though my mathematical logic says that all seven DPs should be elected regardless, I think we should have an investigation by the mods just to make it official.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Would there be a problem if I set up a turnchat for this Saturday? I'm willing to skip my turn if someone else is to run it. I want to make sure we keep the game going.

 

[Sigma]

You were ahead by a clear margin, so there's no doubt that you'd be a DP for next term. Go ahead and set it up. The investigation (if any) would be finished by then.

 

[dutchfire]

You should remove the abstain button next time, it makes calculation impossible.

 

[DaveShack]

In my capacity as a citizen, I recommend the results of this poll be counted as though the number of abstain votes which also contain a vote for one or more candidates is immaterial. This is the most obvious answer, and it is the technically most accurate. From this position I cannot predict what the judiciary might rule if there were a challenge, but it seems the right course of action.

Just use the percentage calculated by the forum software.

 

[DaveShack]

You should remove the abstain button next time, it makes calculation impossible.

That would remove the capability to vote "none of the above". If only one person accepted the nomination and there were no abstain option, it would guarantee a 100% result for the one candidate, even if the candidate is the only one voting and everyone else abstains by not voting.

 

[dutchfire]

What about a poll for every candidate, with Yes, No and abstain.
It's more work, but it will work ok.

 

[Sigma]

I am going to go ahead and validate this poll, because I believe that even if the Judiciary were to review this poll and have an investigation conducted, the results would not change.