Vox Populi Congress Guide

[InkAxis]

Something I missed to have in the guide is the option to have multiple numeric variants in a proposal. For instance, say that I want to propose something like "20% <<insert yield>> when...", but I'm not sure if 20% is the right number for balance. I'd like to provide a range of values as separate votes in the same proposal, for instance:

"X% <<insert yield>> when...", with the following as separate votes:

• Yes, at 15%
• Yes, at 20%
• Yes, at 25%

, instead of either committing to one value, or create multiple counterproposals for each value.

I agree, @Recursive you should be able to make a counter proposal in the OP of a proposal thread.

Why not have a section of passed proposals that are under implementation, and add the rule that new proposals should not conflict with these? There's already a rule stating that a proposal can't be too similar to one that has been rejected or overturned in the prior month or 30 last days.

I think it might still be an issue, because it becomes unclear what affects what. Currently, the VP Congress is, to my knowledge, built specifically to be fairly objective. But it's hard to say what affects what, because civ is a game where every number affects every other one. Look at the adjustments to the production bonus of AIs: that could result in changes to AI techs, AI armies, and even happiness, and other things. Are we blocking proposals on all of those? Probably not but it's something that would cause debate.

Maybe it can be a bi-monthly thing, as nekokon suggested. So there would be some time for a release, for people to playtest, and for proposal ideas.

 

[Stalker0]

Something I missed to have in the guide is the option to have multiple numeric variants in a proposal. For instance, say that I want to propose something like "20% <<insert yield>> when...", but I'm not sure if 20% is the right number for balance. I'd like to provide a range of values as separate votes in the same proposal, for instance:

"X% <<insert yield>> when...", with the following as separate votes:

• Yes, at 15%
• Yes, at 20%
• Yes, at 25%

, instead of either committing to one value, or create multiple counterproposals for each value.

I would argue that if we are unsure of a good value to propose…there shouldn’t be a proposal. This is an example where a little research should be expected ahead of time. Go on discord and be like “i think x is too strong but I’m not quite sure what the number should be..any thoughts?” Then let your mathy people do a little work and come up with something.

Then we pick a number and go with it, and if in playtesting it doesn’t seem right we further tweak it.

 

[Legen]

I would argue that if we are unsure of a good value to propose…there shouldn’t be a proposal. This is an example where a little research should be expected ahead of time. Go on discord and be like “i think x is too strong but I’m not quite sure what the number should be..any thoughts?” Then let your mathy people do a little work and come up with something.

Then we pick a number and go with it, and if in playtesting it doesn’t seem right we further tweak it.

I meant "unsure" in the context of not knowing which one the community would agree upon. Especially in topics where people seem to be unsure or disagree upon, such as the "Tradition vs Progress" at the moment. In these cases, someone may want to give a range of values within one would expect to still be balanced and see where the community stands, rather than risk having the whole idea thrown out because the number used was 5% too unpopular.

I'm already a mathy person, and I don't expect everyone voting to be. Knowing which range of values would be balanced doesn't mean the number I'll pick within it won't be unpopular.

Even in the literal sense, though, there are cases where there isn't a good ground to base upon due to an incoming change, such as with the happiness system right now. If someone wants to propose something tied to such changes, then there's the issue of nobody knowing where the balance will end after the incoming changes. In such cases, the number given ends being a tentative value for the proposal's concept even if you get everyone in both discord and the forum to work on it.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm already a mathy person, and I don't expect everyone voting to be

I think this if the crux of my argument right here. What benefit would giving our lay people a range of values have, considering they aren't going to have knowledge of the math behind the scenes? People aren't going to know whether 5% or 10% is the "right" answer, they will just go based on feel. I think its up to the math people to come up with a number that seems reasonable and present it.

The people that vote are then voting on whether they agree a change is needed, with some trust that the number given has some factual basis behind it. And then in playtesting (also called ratification) if the new change isn't working and people don't like it based on their experience with it, we can roll it back or change it further.

 

[usadefcon1]

What’s the format for the 2nd VP World Congress?

(2-01) Proposal: Proposal Title

 

[axatin]

In the Proposal: Rome Rework thread, @nekokon brought up a potential issue: A modder could come up with a proposal, sponsor it, but deliberately refrain from sponsoring any counterproposals to it in an effort to make them fail. It happened last voting session that one counterproposal to a proposal did not get sponsored while the others did. I believe that this happened by accident and that there was no malicious intent behind it, but a solution needs to be found to prevent such situations in the future. Otherwise, non-modders will get the impression that there is no sense in making counterproposals because at the end of the day, they wouldn't get sponsored anyway.

Proposal: A set of a proposal and its counterproposals is only put to the vote if all parts of it are sponsored (not necessarily by the same person). If a (counter)proposal is indeed out of scope, vetoing should be used as before. Of course, a counterproposal that is made just with the intent to exploit this rule by making unreasonable demands should also be vetoed.

 

[nekokon]

To repeat myself, I don't think there's a good method to prevent this becoming an issue as long as there're still a big difference in contribution and/or knowledge among voters. Since that difference will most likely stay, democracy is a bad idea.
If we really going away from autocracy a senate system would work better, as the more common/less contribution voters/players (lower echelon) propose and vote on ideas they want to see/improve, and the modders/devs (upper echelon) discuss among possible ideas and pick out which they find are good fits (and adjust if needed for balance reason).
In real world this might not be as good since upper echelon usually try to gain benefits for themselves but pretty sure in this community we're more likely to improve the experience of the common player base, well equipped with knowledge and better also have the authority to do so.

 

[Stalker0]

In the Proposal: Rome Rework thread, @nekokon brought up a potential issue: A modder could come up with a proposal, sponsor it, but deliberately refrain from sponsoring any counterproposals to it in an effort to make them fail. It happened last voting session that one counterproposal to a proposal did not get sponsored while the others did. I believe that this happened by accident and that there was no malicious intent behind it, but a solution needs to be found to prevent such situations in the future. Otherwise, non-modders will get the impression that there is no sense in making counterproposals because at the end of the day, they wouldn't get sponsored anyway.

Proposal: A set of a proposal and its counterproposals is only put to the vote if all parts of it are sponsored (not necessarily by the same person). If a (counter)proposal is indeed out of scope, vetoing should be used as before. Of course, a counterproposal that is made just with the intent to exploit this rule by making unreasonable demands should also be vetoed.

I would say this has been the exception rather than the rule in our "sample of 1 voting run". Most proposals recieved sponsorship, and sometimes even from devs who didn't fully like the counterproposal.

At the end of the day the devs do serve as a sort of "legislative checkpoint", they are the ones doing the work afterall. If an idea fails to launch because the devs either can't or won't implement something, they have that right. We have shifted into a much more open system but it is not 100% democracy, the devs do still have say in what will ultimately go into the mod.

 

[Tekamthi]

many of the changes proposed thus far can be accomplished entirely via sql/xml -- if proposer can create the proposal as a mod (without lua), I'd say it should qualify for some kind of auto-sponsorship. This leaves it in hands of the community if they want to ensure their proposal gets sponsorship, without forcing devs to do all kinds of heavy-lifting from scratch

 

[Rekk]

Anyone can sponsor a change. It doesn't need to be someone from a specific pool of devs. The only requirement is that the sponsor can actually perform the change.

SQL/XML changes are something anyone can do with only a small amount of education time.

 

[Recursive]

The Vox Populi Congress Guide has been amended to include all of my changes based on your feedback and my own observations. Please read it carefully. This should hopefully cover all the problems and edge case situations which arose during the pilot test of the system. Fingers crossed that it will be smooth sailing from here on out.

A reminder that the deadline for proposals for Session #2 is December 16th, 2022 at 12 AM CST. The Vox Populi Congress is back on schedule and will continue to follow the original monthly format.

The Proposal & Ratification Queues thread is now live as well!

 

[youngsteve]

Does anyone else think that there should be a limit to the amount of proposals each month. I have just come here to glance at the new proposals & see there are at least 90 over four pages, which seems a bit ridiculous. I know everyone has a view on the mod, & that is good, but it seems a bit of an overkill to me. Particulalry if most of these are voted on

 

[CppMaster]

Does anyone else think that there should be a limit to the amount of proposals each month. I have just come here to glance at the new proposals & see there are at least 90 over four pages, which seems a bit ridiculous. I know everyone has a view on the mod, & that is good, but it seems a bit of an overkill to me. Particulalry if most of these are voted on

No. Devs are not required to do all passed proposals before the next session. If you don't care enough for these proposal base don't then just ignore, like I do.

 

[Stalker0]

Does anyone else think that there should be a limit to the amount of proposals each month. I have just come here to glance at the new proposals & see there are at least 90 over four pages, which seems a bit ridiculous. I know everyone has a view on the mod, & that is good, but it seems a bit of an overkill to me. Particulalry if most of these are voted on

I want to see how the sponsorship phase looks before I'll concur or not. The final number of things to vote on may look much smaller once things are weeded out and counterpropoals are all combined into 1.

 

[axatin]

The current proposal phase is three times as long as usual. In normal, 15-day proposal phases we won't have that many proposals.

 

[Recursive]

The current proposal phase is three times as long as usual. In normal, 15-day proposal phases we won't have that many proposals.

This, and I won't be sponsoring three dozen proposals this time. There will be attrition for the less feasible ones.

 

[Stalker0]

For this next session, I think we should tighten veto criteria around proposals with multiple parts.

There are proposals where multiple parts are absolutely needed, because if one part is implemented, and another part is not, the proposal just dosn't work.

However, there are others where we effectively have 2 proposals in one, and one part has no real impact on the other. We should encourage those to be split into two proposals, it keeps the voting and implementation cleaner.

 

[CppMaster]

There are proposals where multiple parts are absolutely needed, because if one part is implemented, and another part is not, the proposal just dosn't work.

So like proposal dependency. It makes sense.

 

[Recursive]

For this next session, I think we should tighten veto criteria around proposals with multiple parts.

There are proposals where multiple parts are absolutely needed, because if one part is implemented, and another part is not, the proposal just dosn't work.

However, there are others where we effectively have 2 proposals in one, and one part has no real impact on the other. We should encourage those to be split into two proposals, it keeps the voting and implementation cleaner.

Not a bad idea, but how do I determine what constitutes "no real impact"? For instance, azum4roll's lategame unit proposal affected numerous separate units, but obviously if it had been proposed as:
- Proposal: Mercenary CS increase to 66
- Proposal: Bazooka CS increase to 70
- Proposal: Bazooka RCS increase to 80

That would have been painful (and also mess with game balance).

More proposals also means more work for me keeping track of them all, and a greater chance that something will fall between the cracks.

 

[CppMaster]

Both options are available currently anyway.