• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Vox Populi Congress Guide

I think we should reconsider the policy on polls in the general forum. I think polls can still be a useful tools as people are crafting proposals and getting a toe in the water on what the community might like. they just won't have any "power" anymore except through teh voting phase.
I have considered this as well, but let's get this Voting Phase out of the way first as there will be a lot of voting. :crazyeye:
 
I'm going to start a feedback thread for how the VP Congress can be improved.
Imho, you don't need to add this line: "(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)" every time you mark a proposal as sponsored. It's just a clutter at this point.
 
Imho, you don't need to add this line: "(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)" every time you mark a proposal as sponsored. It's just a clutter at this point.
Yeah, I won't do that every time, it's just messaging to make sure everyone understands the system for this first session.
 
For future rounds, I wonder if there shouldn't be a voting option to "defer vote" on each proposal bundle. Say majority of community hasn't really grappled with the issue fully yet, and the proposals are imperfect but have achieved sponsorship -- when the proposal has moved into voting there may be desire to vote for imperfect option just so it doesn't get blocked from being proposed again if it fails. Having a defer vote option gives community the ability to say "we are interested in a change here but not these ones, or not yet"... relevant proposal threads can then be reactivated in congress for the next round, making for better flow to discussion rather than a different-but-same discussion thread starting again after the failed-proposal cooldown wears off, or new discussion about repealing half-baked changes etc.

edit: maybe also sticky the main forum proposal threads during voting phase? having other discussion threads mixed in between them strikes me as distracting; I rarely click past first page of main forum if any happen to fall off, and I imagine many who visit here do same.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, all voting threads clutter much the main forum. Can they be moved to the congress subforum?
 
Last edited:
I kept saying we need more discussion threads outside to gauge interest and finalizing ideas first before making proposal, but ppl just go ahead and make a bunch of proposal/counter proposal without properly discussing.
Some proposals even got deferred by the author since they found a better solution or realize their proposal isn't viable/have no sponsor later.
After discussing and all agreed on disagreements that we should make proposal/counter proposal based on our disagreements, to make sure some ideas weren't originated from misinformation (which can't be shown on the voting thread and uninvolved ppl need to dig into all individual counter proposal threads to find out)
 
So maybe what's missing is one more space between "submitted proposals" (a new folder?) and a "proposal workshop"? I think we're starting to use the main Community Patch Project space for ideas, and I don't know if that's okay and intended, or if we want to keep congress stuff out of it until the voting phase.
 
For future rounds, I wonder if there shouldn't be a voting option to "defer vote" on each proposal bundle. Say majority of community hasn't really grappled with the issue fully yet, and the proposals are imperfect but have achieved sponsorship -- when the proposal has moved into voting there may be desire to vote for imperfect option just so it doesn't get blocked from being proposed again if it fails. Having a defer vote option gives community the ability to say "we are interested in a change here but not these ones, or not yet"... relevant proposal threads can then be reactivated in congress for the next round, making for better flow to discussion rather than a different-but-same discussion thread starting again after the failed-proposal cooldown wears off, or new discussion about repealing half-baked changes etc.

edit: maybe also sticky the main forum proposal threads during voting phase? having other discussion threads mixed in between them strikes me as distracting; I rarely click past first page of main forum if any happen to fall off, and I imagine many who visit here do same.
If we went this way, deferring should not be allowed in the following vote. From experience, allowing for indefinite deferrals causes backlog items to accumulate. By needing to resubmit a proposal, it shows that there's still interest in the solution. I agree (as we're seeing) there are cases where seeing the options laid out more plainly highlights shortcomings or unaddressed topics in some proposals. For some I've taken the approach of "I'd rather fix it during ratification", but others I've thought "I think this needs one more pass".
 
For future rounds, I wonder if there shouldn't be a voting option to "defer vote" on each proposal bundle. Say majority of community hasn't really grappled with the issue fully yet, and the proposals are imperfect but have achieved sponsorship -- when the proposal has moved into voting there may be desire to vote for imperfect option just so it doesn't get blocked from being proposed again if it fails. Having a defer vote option gives community the ability to say "we are interested in a change here but not these ones, or not yet"... relevant proposal threads can then be reactivated in congress for the next round, making for better flow to discussion rather than a different-but-same discussion thread starting again after the failed-proposal cooldown wears off, or new discussion about repealing half-baked changes etc.

edit: maybe also sticky the main forum proposal threads during voting phase? having other discussion threads mixed in between them strikes me as distracting; I rarely click past first page of main forum if any happen to fall off, and I imagine many who visit here do same.
Just because a something passes doesn't mean that a new proposal can't build on it.

If you think the proposal would be better than we have now, then vote for it. If you think it doesn't go far enough, even if it's in the right direction, vote for it then make a new proposal that takes it further.

If you would like to playtest the change, vote for it. If you don't think it's worth playtesting, don't vote for it.
 
Last edited:
If an option receives at least 10 votes in favor and more votes than any other option, it will be selected. If "no changes" got the most votes, nothing happens. If an option for changes got the most votes, it will be added to the next release of Vox Populi once the coding work for it is complete. Ties will be broken by Recursive.
This kind of plurality approval voting works when there are many options versus one Nay, but I don't see how it makes any sense in binary cases. If there's a proposal which 51% of the community support but 49% think is completely game-ruining, that's appropriate to implement, is it?
 
This kind of plurality approval voting works when there are many options versus one Nay, but I don't see how it makes any sense in binary cases. If there's a proposal which 51% of the community support but 49% think is completely game-ruining, that's appropriate to implement, is it?
Yes.
 
having seen the clog voting does in the general forum, I do think we should have a subforum for it. Keeps everything nice and tiddy.
 
Probably should have mentioned in the first post of each poll or somewhere in the congress guide that you can change your vote before it's closed.
Seeing a lot of ppl voted without getting all the needed info from a bunch of proposal/counter proposal threads (quite easily ngl) they should also be told that just in case they want to change the vote based on (new) info, as long as it's before the polls are closed.
 
having seen the clog voting does in the general forum, I do think we should have a subforum for it. Keeps everything nice and tiddy.
Yeah, all voting threads clutter much the main forum. Can they be moved to the congress subforum?
So I was going to move all the 100+ pages of old threads to the Archive subforum to de-clutter the forum but was too busy this month, I'll get to it soon. We're getting enough votes that visibility is working out so it's a temporary annoyance. I think it's more important that the proposals are actually voted on.

This kind of plurality approval voting works when there are many options versus one Nay, but I don't see how it makes any sense in binary cases. If there's a proposal which 51% of the community support but 49% think is completely game-ruining, that's appropriate to implement, is it?
Ah, democracy. Majority Plurality wins, I'm afraid. Keep in mind changes will be ratified.

Probably should have mentioned in the first post of each poll or somewhere in the congress guide that you can change your vote before it's closed.
Seeing a lot of ppl voted without getting all the needed info from a bunch of proposal/counter proposal threads (quite easily ngl) they should also be told that just in case they want to change the vote based on (new) info, as long as it's before the polls are closed.
You make a fair point, I'll edit that in to existing threads and include it in new threads.
 
Last edited:
For future rounds, I wonder if there shouldn't be a voting option to "defer vote" on each proposal bundle. Say majority of community hasn't really grappled with the issue fully yet, and the proposals are imperfect but have achieved sponsorship -- when the proposal has moved into voting there may be desire to vote for imperfect option just so it doesn't get blocked from being proposed again if it fails. Having a defer vote option gives community the ability to say "we are interested in a change here but not these ones, or not yet"... relevant proposal threads can then be reactivated in congress for the next round, making for better flow to discussion rather than a different-but-same discussion thread starting again after the failed-proposal cooldown wears off, or new discussion about repealing half-baked changes etc.

edit: maybe also sticky the main forum proposal threads during voting phase? having other discussion threads mixed in between them strikes me as distracting; I rarely click past first page of main forum if any happen to fall off, and I imagine many who visit here do same.
No. That will lead to endless bureaucracy. Ratification is meant to handle imperfect proposals.

I also can't sticky 40 proposals, but I'll work to de-clutter the forum for next time.
 
Made an edit: new proposals have to wait until the next Proposal Phase.
 
That's not how math works. You will never get into that kind of situation

Can you give an example on what you mean, because I don't understand what you're asking. As is, your question is a mathematical impossibility.
32 currently has more than 50% of people voting, thus by definition a majority, voting for Yea. I also has even more peple, a plurality, voting for Nay. This is because like 1 in 10 voters voted for both Yea and Nay for some reason.
 
Top Bottom