Message 1 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sun Nov 21 19:52:25 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues (#1139), *Petition-Ideas (#45305), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: New petition, #42212 I have created a new petition, #42212, with the intent of fixing some of the holes discovered in the ARB elections process. It's posted and unsigned for now so we can tweak it. I probably won't sign it until the first election is finished in case new holes are revealed. But I wanted to get the groundwork going.. Dred -------------------------- Message 2 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sun Nov 21 19:56:29 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Notes on this I realize that the hot-point in this petition will be Item 1. I put it in for now because I think we're really getting a whole lot of people running who probably shouldn't. However, if after all the discussion on this petition convinces me to remove it, I will. I'd rather see the rest implemented than the first item. I don't want it to be the cause of the whole petition's failure. My reasonings for the first item are pretty clear (to me at least). If anyone needs clarification, please mail and I'll do my best. Dred -------------------------- Message 3 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sun Nov 21 20:45:13 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: item 4 I also think Item 4 is probably going to need some work. I slapped it together fairly quickly and arbitrarily. I'm completely open to suggestions on better ways to handle it. -------------------------- Message 4 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sun Nov 21 22:32:53 1993 PST From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: okay. . . As the author of the original ballot, I by-and-large approve of this petition. Some comments, however: On 4: A better way to handle this would be to remove the option of abstaining. This way, to keep from being bugged about a ballot, one must vote yes or no. On 1: I am strongly opposed to this. If you must have it, put it in a seperate petition. It turns the ARB into a self-purpetuating oligarchy again, and prevents those with good ideas but content with their quota (such people exist) from being on the ARB. -Xi, who has naver got a quota increase, nor asked for one -------------------------- Message 5 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 07:02:14 1993 PST From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: w00fly comments on text woof 1. Although I don't agree with the provision (I think everyone should the same voting/candidacy rights once they are a member of the community), this needs to be rewritten. In particular the 2nd sentence made no sense to me. Suggested wording (which I wouldn't sign): "To be eligible for nomination a player must have been granted a quota request from the ARB in the past." woof 2. Lots candidates were nominated and had signatures before they were aware they had been nominated - that in iself does not seem to me to be broken. I would change this so that once declined a petition will no longer accept signatures, or alternatively that an unaccepted petition could not advance to candidacy. The second alternative models the RL more closely. Suggested wording (second option): "A nomination must be accepted by the nominee before becoming a ballot." woof 3. If a candidate withdraws what happens to the votes? Since you can change your vote at any time I guess this ins't a problem, as long as the withdraw ballot allows players to do so. This should be made explicit. 'When a candidate withdraws from the election all votes recorded on the corresponding ballot are annulled and may be recast. woof 4. Generally I think hardcoding absolute numbers in the ballot/petition process is not a good idea as it changes the rules slightly as the population size varies. I would prefer to see this rule changed in the slightest and simplest form possible (and to cover all ballots too). The algorithm I propose would be 2/3 plus 1. Ie 2:1 fails but 3:1 passes, as does 601:200. One could quibble about the 2/3 rpart, but experience with the ballots so far shows that it is a workable number. Suggested wording (some may think that it allows miniscule turnout to affect moo-dom): "Any ballot passes if it has one more than twice as many yes votes as no votes." woof 5. Case 2 changes rules in midstream. Let us learn from this (and any subsequent election under the current rules) election and go on rather than start over if the ballot passes. If this view is adopted the whole provision is unecessary. Note also that this provision requires the wizards to finish implementing the entire petition before a new ARB election could be called, in potential conflict with the passed ballot requiring an ARB election to be triggered when a vacancy appears on the board. Ballot measures imposing deadlines of this sort make a claim to wizardly labor that is improper (wizards as slaves, heh). In addition to this, I would recommend separating rationale and effect, and making explicit that the rationale is not part of the proposed changes. I think that if you make changes in the spirit of those suggested it will be a very compact and effective piece of legislation. ,, '()' - Kilik -------------------------- Message 6 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 07:16:49 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: scalpels I think Kilik would agree that 'more than 2/3' would be better than '2/3+1' since the Implementor might rule a vote of 2/3+15 didn't win. (Just want to be safe!) I think having had a quota increase is a reasonable qualification for a candidate to claim, but I'm not sure it should be formally required. ARB members might become motivated to withold quota from someone they do not want to see elected. I don't think in practice this would really be any problem, but in general I prefer to keep motivations clear, and let people vote their minds when possible. yoof P.S. I would probably sign the petition as it stands, tho. -------------------------- Message 7 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 09:46:18 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: Kilik (#2819) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: w00fly comments on text > woof 1. Although I don't agree with the provision (I think > everyone should the same voting/candidacy rights once they are a > member of the community), this needs to be rewritten. In > particular the 2nd sentence made no sense to me. Suggested > wording (which I wouldn't sign): I have rewritten this part, so hopefully it's clearer. I've heard an even amount of arguments on both sides of this issue so far. I want to hear more before I make up my mind to leave it or pull it. I'm beginning to think I'll pull it anyway and submit it as a separate petition/issue after this one passes or fails. > > woof 2. Lots candidates were nominated and had signatures > woof 3. If a candidate withdraws what happens to the votes? I liked these suggestions. I put them in. > > woof 4. Generally I think hardcoding absolute numbers in the > ballot/petition process is not a good idea as it changes the rules I agree. I slapped in that 20 minimum pretty much off the top of my head. I want to hear lots of suggestions and change it accordingly. According to your suggestion, 2 yes, 1 no fails while 3 yes, 1 no passes. So if only 4 people vote, the ballot passes. I prefer to set some kind of limit..But I dunno. As my method stands, Rusty pointed out that 19 yes 0 no fails while 14 yes, 6 no passes. That also seems wrong... > > woof 5. Case 2 changes rules in midstream. Let us learn > from this (and any subsequent election under the current rules) > election and go on rather than start over if the ballot passes. > If this view is adopted the whole provision is unecessary. Note > also that this provision requires the wizards to finish > implementing the entire petition before a new ARB election could > be called, in potential conflict with the passed ballot requiring > an ARB election to be triggered when a vacancy appears on the > board. Ballot measures imposing deadlines of this sort make a > claim to wizardly labor that is improper (wizards as slaves, heh). Well, it was my intention to draw the line as to where people have a stake in the system. In my mind that was when the voting period opened up. I would rather see the petition period dumped and then reinstalled with the acceptance and withdrawal options in place. As for waiting forcing the wizards to work with a deadline, remember that we waited with 2 empty seats while Haakon put together the election process. No one complained about that delay. I'm sure they won't complain about this one. However, this petition is far from written in stone... > I think that if you make changes in the spirit of those suggested > it will be a very compact and effective piece of legislation. > > ,, > '()' - Kilik Why thank you! heh. I'm doing my best.. Dred -------------------------- Message 8 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 10:00:37 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: Xiombarg (#37636) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: okay. . . > On 4: A better way to handle this would be to remove the option of > abstaining. This way, to keep from being bugged about a ballot, > one must vote yes or no. Would this be better than merely requiring a quorum? (I'd be satisfied with a quorum of one, but others may feel differently.) I don't think this is much of an issue; presumably anyone on the ballot has fifty supporters... > On 1: I am strongly opposed to this. If you must have it, put it > in a seperate petition. It turns the ARB into a self-purpetuating > oligarchy again, and prevents those with good ideas but content > with their quota (such people exist) from being on the ARB. I don't think it makes the ARB a self-perpetuating oligarchy; I think life terms do much more in that direction. Rather, I would say it ensures continuity. Assuming term limits of some form are instituted, the entire character of the ARB could be changed in a very short time. Maybe it's because I'm an elitist snob, but I'd like change in ARB attitudes to be gradual. For the sake of people who are clueful and themely and so on but who get along fine with 20 quota, I might suggest that some kind of `null quota increase' be allowed, so the ARB can say `hey, this person's building is good'. On the other hand, why not just make the normal request? You don't have to use the quota you get... Issues that have nothing to do with Xiombarg's post: For item 2, I'd like to see declining be an obstacle only to ballothood. That is, a petition exists and can collect signatures and so on; but if the nominee has declined, no one can vote for em in the election. I also think clearing an election in progress is a bad idea. -------------------------- Message 9 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 11:40:22 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Ambiguity Part (4) of the proposal is, I think, more ambiguous than the author intended. Where it says `votes', I think he means `"yes" or "no" votes'. -------------------------- Message 10 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 11:45:43 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: abstentions Xiombarg writes: On 4: A better way to handle this would be to remove the option of abstaining. This way, to keep from being bugged about a ballot, one must vote yes or no. Uh, no, actually, making 'em vote "yes" or "no", in combination with the rule that you may only vote "yes" once, would virtually guarantee failure of all ballots, unless an overwhelming majority voted for one candidate. It would certainly guarantee that only one candidate could possibly be elected. I certainly plan to vote "yes" for my favorite candidate, abstain on folks I wouldn't mind seeing on the ARB, and vote "no" on any remaining I might rather not see on the board. Abstentions are important! --yduJ -------------------------- Message 11 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 12:11:48 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) I thoroughly support this petition and ALL it's stipulations. I will support this petition's requirement of having had a quota increase. If someone has had an increase, he/she should be more familiar with the workings of the ARB. If someone does not want an increase, I would doubt whether they should participate in the process of judging those that do. However, I could propose an alternative, you can toss over if you like.. Perhaps, add the stipulation that the candidate be 'qualified' .. and list the qualifications. These perhaps being 'an acceptable knowledge of programming' and 'a dedication to the theme' .. These of course being completely subjective. Therefore, the nominator would be required to list the reasons why the nominee is qualified with examples on the nomination petition. The people signing the petition/ballot would have the opportunity to review the work. This does not seem to be as stringent as Dred's proposal, it could be a compromise. However, I will definately support any petition that adds any sort of 'competancy qualifications' to the process. -M -------------------------- Message 12 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 18:08:52 1993 PST From: splat (#59277) To: Xiombarg (#37636) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: okay. . . > Date: Sun Nov 21 22:32:53 1993 PST > From: Xiombarg (#37636) > To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) > Subject: okay. . . > > As the author of the original ballot, I by-and-large approve of > this petition. Some comments, however: > On 4: A better way to handle this would be to remove the option of > abstaining. This way, to keep from being bugged about a ballot, > one must vote yes or no. I hope you realize that with that put in no ARB seat is likely to ever be filled. If people are bugged to vote on 7 ballots and can only vote yes on one of them, then on average 6/7 of everyone will vote no on each one. Now I realize (since this is the whole point) that that'll vary with the quality of the candidate, but it's unlikely to get down near 1/3 unless only one half-decent candidate is running (in the unanimous opinion, pretty much, of all MOOers, which has GOT to be impossible...) Personally, I think the whole idea of 2/3 majority ballots for the ARB is more than a little absurd, when combined with the 1-yes-vote rule. Except maybe if only one no vote was allowed too... splat -------------------------- Message 13 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 18:14:07 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: okay. . . It should be pointed out that you only get bugged about ARB ballots if you haven't voted on *any* of them, so even one abstention on one of them is sufficient to stop the notification. Lambda -------------------------- Message 14 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 20:16:51 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Dred (#49925) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: fix arb thing Would it be possible for you to make your petition fix the 2/3 * 0 vs 1/3 * 0 bug in *all* petitions, not just ARB petitions? I realize that it is like zero probability that a normal ballot would get zero votes, but I think it would be cleaner if it didn't have this bug (so if other arb-petition-like things arise, they can't inherit this bug). -------------------------- Message 15 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Nov 22 20:24:27 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: yduJ (#68) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: fix arb thing > Would it be possible for you to make your petition fix the 2/3 * 0 > vs 1/3 * 0 bug in *all* petitions, not just ARB petitions? I > realize that it is like zero probability that a normal ballot > would get zero votes, but I think it would be cleaner if it didn't > have this bug (so if other arb-petition-like things arise, they > can't inherit this bug). Sounds like a good idea to me. However, I'm still not sure how to fix it. For instance, If we just say any ballot that receives zero votes fails, then a ballot that receives 1 yes vote and no `no' votes passes. It seems weird to me, but feasible. I dunno. Do people like that idea? I don't like that 20 vote minimum I put on. I wanna change it, but still I'm not sure what to change it to. -------------------------- Message 16 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Nov 23 05:58:27 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: 2/3 How about: "for *any* ballot to pass, it must have at least 10 'yes' votes, and must have more than twice as many 'yes' votes as 'no' votes." Then, 10-0 and 13-6 and 41-20 all pass. yoof -------------------------- Message 17 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Nov 23 11:02:37 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: 2/3 Yeah, Rusty suggested something similar. Put the cap on total yes votes rather than total votes both yes and no. Probably the way to go. Is 10 enough? 15? 20? Or lower? -------------------------- Message 18 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Nov 25 18:37:12 1993 PST From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: yes 10 sounds like a good number. However, I want to repeat the plea to please please please get rid of provision 1 (the criterion for running). If you don't, I'm likely to burn my current petition (it isn't doing very well anyway) and write a new peitition _exactly the same as this one_ with provision 1 removed. Please don't make me have to do that. -Xi -------------------------- Message 19 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Nov 25 19:27:43 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Changes Okay. I have made some changes: - I removed section 1 about the criterion. Some people are adamant that it stays, others are adamant that it should be removed. I think this particular item is enough to cause this petition to be more controversial than it should be. So, I've taken it out. I fully intend to submit it as a separate petition unto itself after this one passes or fails. - I reworked item 3 (it was 4) about the 0 votes problem. Now, it requires that a ballot have at least 10 yes votes to pass. That's 1/5th of the signatures needed to make it a ballot in the first place, and I don't think that's too much to ask. If it has more than 10 votes, then the usual 2/3rds rule comes into play. How does that sound everyone? - I took out the case where an election is interrupted to implement the changes. I thought it was a good idea when I first wrote this. I've changed my mind. What's the rush? Dred -------------------------- Message 20 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Nov 25 19:32:04 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: er In my last post: If it has more than 10 YES votes, then the usual 2/3rds rule comes into play. How does that sound everyone? -------------------------- Message 21 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 12:11:00 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Some technical concerns on this proposal > 1) When a player is nominated by another, that player has the option of > declining that nomination. This will not preclude that player from > changing eir mind and accepting another nomination later. In addition, if > the player does wish to accept, e must indicate so (with a simple command) > before the ARB-petition may become an ARB-ballot. This acceptance may > occur any time during the signature gaining process. I find this paragraph confusing because it refers variously to `declining' and `accepting' the nomination. I am left, therefore, wondering if the intent is to create two separate mechanisms or just one? The two I get hints of in the paragraph are -- giving the nominee a chance to decline the nomination *before* the nominating petition is created, and -- preventing a nominating petition from proceeding to ballot until the nominee has explicitly accepted the nomination. The second of these is more-or-less explicitly called for in the paragraph, but the first sentence makes it sound like maybe the first mechanism is supposed to exist as well. Since this would be redundant, I'm assuming that the intent is just to require the second mechanism. This should be made more explicit before this proposal becomes a ballot. > 2) At any time during the petition signing period, or even during the voting > period, a player may withdraw from the election without penalty. If for > some strange reason the last person withdraws from the election during > the voting stage, and there are still open ARB seats, the whole election > process starts anew. If a player withdraws from the election during the > voting stage, all votes recorded on the corresponding ARB-ballot are > annulled and may be recast. Notification of such withdrawals should be > made publically so that voters are aware that they may need to recast eir > votes. The words `without penalty' seem funny to me, since I can't see what penalty you might be attempting to rule out. Can we just drop those words? Instead of saying that the election process `starts anew', perhaps it would be simpler to fall back on the `re-open nominations' procedure already part of the ARB elections process (see `help ARB-elections' for details). Lambda -------------------------- Message 22 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 13:21:28 1993 PST From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: okay. . . I fully support the new form of this petition, especially once Lambda's suggestions are added. It conforms quite well with the spirit (if not the letter) of *b:ARB, and I look forward to voting for it. (i.e. I like the changes) -Xi -------------------------- Message 23 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 13:43:43 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: loophole the idea that the 'election process starts anew' if a nominee withdraws during the voting stage, creates a loophole. If the anarchists organized (this is a thought experiment) then they could prevent all elections, by nominating one of themselves, who then promptly withdraws. The choice of one player should not unnecessarily force the whole system; but certainly nominees, who historically may resign from the ARB itself, should be able to decline nominations. In fact, on the principle that we should avoid *forcing* people to do anything, I would have considered the right to decline, and to withdraw, to have been natural and intrinsic, and not to have required specification in the original rules. yoof -------------------------- Message 24 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 13:46:21 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: addition to above In my experience, organization by-laws and charters dictate how vacancies are replaced, but do *not* give or withold permission for members to resign. It's implicit. yoof -------------------------- Message 25 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 14:14:19 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: oops ==> Kilik pages. The short alias is Jean You can hear Kilik whining about something in the distance. He pages, "if the *last* candidate withdraws, not *any* candidate..." page kilik oops. Kilik eats your page. ..yoof (with a mouthful of page) -------------------------- Message 26 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 15:44:32 1993 PST From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) I believe that the nominating period should be shortened to one week. It is my belief that the current system has yieled too many ballots to make for a sensible campaign. One week should be plenty for the hard-core ARB wannabes. -------------------------- Message 27 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 15:47:27 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: Euphistopheles (#50222) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: addition to above > Date: Fri Nov 26 13:46:21 1993 PST > From: Euphistopheles (#50222) > > In my experience, organization by-laws and charters dictate how > vacancies are replaced, but do *not* give or withold permission > for members to resign. It's implicit. I don't recall anyone arguing here that the right to resign had to be specified, only the mechanism and effect of withdrawing from the election. Lambda -------------------------- Message 28 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 17:44:52 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: fix all elections too I'd like to see the minimum 10 yes votes be extended to all petitions, just to be neat and clean. (Well, actually I'd like to see it minimum *one* yes vote, just to avoid being judgemental, but I don't really care much about that). --yduJ -------------------------- Message 29 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 18:14:07 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Another thing to add: see 150 on *petitions-process. -------------------------- Message 30 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Nov 26 22:31:12 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Latest edits My latest changes: 1 - Well, I did have two mechanisms in mind, but after seeing Lambda's post, I noticed he was right. There's no need. So I rewrote it to include just the one mechanism. Much clearer now. All a player needs to do is accept sometime to indicated that e really does want to be on the ARB. 2 - I took out the `without penalty' line. I had originally figured to play it safe, but there really is no need. I also changed the `starts anew' to be a pointer to the existing systems `re-open nominations' in `help ARB-elections' 4 - I added this new change. I liked Greene's idea to shorten the nominating period to one week. I wholeheartedly agree that it's just taking too long. -------- yduJ has pointed out that she would like to see the changes in 3) to affect all ballots. At least require them to have at least one yes vote to pass. Does everyone think I should put that in? A simple change, but with big effects. Also, I read #54055 again, and considered the fact that we could suddenly have more than 15 ARB members. I dunno if I like this..It was quite intentional I noticed..It does seem unlikely with the way yes and no votes can be cast... Maybe we'll just wait and see how this election comes out. Dred -------------------------- Message 31 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Wed Dec 1 20:24:08 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues (#1139), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: addition I have added a new `fix' to my petition. Specifically to disable the abstain command. Please read the petition and send commentary to the list. -------------------------- Message 32 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Wed Dec 1 21:08:55 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *social-issues (#7233) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: BIG bug I edited my petition and added a clause that would disable the `abstain' command on ARB-ballots. Talking with a friend who was changing some of his votes around, we found out that the only way to change a No vote to anything other than a Yes vote required one to abstain! There's NO way to remove your vote once it is cast. Only to change it to another vote. This is true of regular ballots too, mind you. Once you vote (whatever that vote is), it is totally unremovable. But it is changeable...Not the same thing. So, I have added another clause to my petition. It requires the installation of a new command, `unvote', to ARB-ballots. I think this method is much clearer. Please read #42212 and comment on it. Perhaps the unvote verb should go on ALL ballots... Dred -------------------------- Message 33 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Wed Dec 1 21:24:30 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Dred (#49925), *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues (#1139), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: addition Um. If I vote yes or no on someone, and then change my mind and want to have abstained, I'll need some way to do so. Perhaps the abstain command should exist, but instead of marking you as an abstention, merely remove any existing yes or no vote. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 34 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Dec 2 00:34:43 1993 PST From: splat (#59277) To: yduJ (#68), Dred (#49925), *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues (#1139), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: addition > Date: Wed Dec 1 21:24:30 1993 PST > From: yduJ (#68) > To: Dred (#49925), *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues > (#1139), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) > Subject: Re: addition > > Um. If I vote yes or no on someone, and then change my mind and > want to have abstained, I'll need some way to do so. Perhaps the > abstain command should exist, but instead of marking you as an > abstention, merely remove any existing yes or no vote. > --yduJ Well, I dunno about that. I find marking for abstention useful. If I have to be off the MOO for a couple days I'd like to have a way to keep track of which candidates I already have researched and found to be fairly harmless, and which I'm still considering voting no on, and abstention does that for me in the case of people I don't know or otherwise can't remember very well most of the time... splat -------------------------- Message 35 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Dec 2 07:03:35 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: abstention Could someone run this by me again? What's wrong with "yes/no/abstain"? yoof (clueless) -------------------------- Message 36 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Dec 2 07:18:51 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) and Euphistopheles (#50222) Subject: Re: abstention Yeah, my posts were fuzzy since it was late. Here it is again: On regular ballots, the abstain command serves 2 purposes: 1) Get rid of that annoying `a ballot exists and you haven't voted yet' message when you connect. Without casting a definite yes or no vote. 2) Change your vote from a yes or no vote, but not to the other. A yes to abstain or a no to abstain in case you've decided to be ambivalent on the issue. On ARB-ballots, the conditions which motivate 1 do not exist. You aren't notified about ARB-ballots. This leaves 2 (which I forgot about when I added clause 5). However, a new use of the abstain command was found for ARB-ballots: to indicate `second best candidate'. People have found that they can vote yes on their favorite, abstain on their second favorites, and vote no on the ones they don't want on the ARB. When typing @arb-ballots, one could see all these abstentions and get an idea of how people were voting because of this new rationale. Not a good thing, so yduJ masked the abstentions. This method, however, is purely a subjective thing. Abstaining on a ballot has no effect on its outcome. It has the same effect as just not voting at all on it. So what's the point in abstaining? None that I can see except to change your vote away from a `yes' but not to a `no' and vice versa. So I have clause 5 which disables the abstain command, and clause 6 which calls for the addition of an `unvote' command. I think the `unvote' command is a much more unambiguous verb, and does a cleaner job of changing your vote away. It just doesn't exist anymore after unvoting. Dred -------------------------- Message 37 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Dec 2 10:11:41 1993 PST From: umop-apisdn (#59967) To: splat (#59277), *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues (#1139), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: addition > Well, I dunno about that. I find marking for abstention useful. > If I have to be off the MOO for a couple days I'd like to have a > way to keep track of which candidates I already have researched > and found to be fairly harmless, and which I'm still considering > voting no on, and abstention does that for me in the case of > people I don't know or otherwise can't remember very well most of > the time... > Abstention marking still works for me on @arb-petitions. All that is changed is that it no longer reports the tally of how many =others= have abstained on each candidate. I agree that abstain marking is useful for exactly the reason you mentioned. I use it for that also. But I strongly believe that reporting the abstain totals during the ballot period is harmful and not in the spirit of secret balloting. Actually, so is reporting the yes+no tallies for that matter. Reporting any totals before the close of balloting lends itself to a herd mentality in the same way that exit polling and early returns reporting is criticised in RL elections. Certainly reporting yes+no is not as harmful or as informative in the same way as reporting abstain totals. And not =nearly= as harmful as it would be to report to-date yes totals and no totals individually. But it is still part of the same principle. Suppose a candidate has a strong block of friends (or enemies) who very quickly vote on him/her/it. Suppose then that I'm a hermit and don't really know much about anybody. If I see that one candidate has 50 yes+no while nobody else has more than 10 or 20 or so, then I figure that candidate is either very popular or very unpopular. If I have a hazy notion that he looked rather friendly in the LR one day, I might decide to vote for him just because I believe lots of others are voting for him. A schmuck way to think, but nonetheless lots of people do think that way. The reason that election returns should not be reported before the close of balloting is to prevent this kind of influence from the voting process. All the influences I've described could similarly take place during campaining, but that is very different from drawing such inferences out of early vote totals. The idea is that campaining is an important and free form of pursuasion, but all forms of pursuasion should be kept at a distinct distance from the voting process itself. --- umop-apisdn / Sherwood -------------------------- Message 38 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sat Dec 4 11:25:23 1993 PST From: splat (#59277) To: umop-apisdn (#59967), *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues (#1139), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: addition > Date: Thu Dec 2 10:11:41 1993 PST > From: umop-apisdn (#59967) > To: splat (#59277), *social-issues (#7233), *ARB-Issues Well, you raised some very good points. I, too, wish no vote info was shown, except your own. It's really too bad that's not what's currently on the petition. And I myself find 'abstain' much more intuitive than 'unvote', since 'abstain' is a real word in the English language... splat -------------------------- Message 39 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sun Dec 5 19:04:30 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: ARB Election Abstentions? APHiD and Lambda from 1846 on *social-issues: > > It just occured to me, what with the ARB-Elections now > officially > > open, what effect does abstaining make? As far as I can see, > > ARB-Ballots don't bug you when you log on and abstentions don't > > seem to affect the final tally in any way. Do abstentions > > You *are supposed to be bugged about voting in the ARB election; > there must be a bug in the code. The idea of abstaining on ARB Yikes, well I guess I was mistaken. People -are- bugged about ARB elections when they connect. So the whole basis for clause 5 and 6 is false. Therefore, I have taken them out and rewritten clause 5. All it does now is verify the quick changes yduJ made to mask the @arb-ballots display, and any other verbs that display such info, so that amounts of votes (whatever votes they may be) are not revealed except for your own. So you are only privy to how you voted, and that's all you'll see on an `@arb-ballots'. I think this makes sense in a competitory secret ballot like this system is. Dred -------------------------- Message 41 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sun Dec 5 23:55:45 1993 PST From: A_Smile (#46432) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: login message change The login message (at least the one I saw) for the election contained a list of the candidates and a brief instruction of the 'vote yes on ' and such commands. This message is misleading because the only object numbers associated with each candidate was their object number, not their ballot's object number. I know a few who had problems voting because they were mislead to type 'vote yes on ' Thanks for your time, A_Smile -------------------------- Message 42 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 6 01:50:55 1993 PST From: Bartlebooth (#47818) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Yes and No votes... While this isn't addressed in your petition, I put it forward as a suggestion. How about a change from one Yes vote per election to one Yes vote per open seat? The current election will fill two seats on the ARB, and yet we can only vote yes for one player. This means that we must vote yes for the candidate we most want, abstain for our second pick, and vote no for the rest, in order to promote the two ARB would-bes that we like. I may have missed something in the absatin vs. no debate, but I think 1 yes per chair will simplify things, especially in situations where several seats are open. Also, it will help offset the ratio of yes to no votes. However, if you think that this might hurt the passage of your other fixes, skip it, and it will be presented at a later date. Bartlebooth -------------------------- Message 43 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 6 10:30:28 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: A_Smile (#46432) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: login message change > Date: Sun Dec 5 23:55:45 1993 PST > From: A_Smile (#46432) > > The login message (at least the one I saw) for the election > contained a list of the candidates and a brief instruction of the > 'vote yes on ' and such commands. This message is > misleading because the only object numbers associated with each > candidate was their object number, not their ballot's object > number. I know a few who had problems voting because they were > mislead to type 'vote yes on ' The notice for the normal ballots currently open does give instructions on voting, but the one for the ARB candidates does not; that one just says to type `@arb-ballots' for more information. In the `@arb-ballots' output, the instructions are careful to point out that you need to use the object number in the `ObjNum' column. Lambda/Haakon -------------------------- Message 44 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 13 21:27:28 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: Bartlebooth (#47818) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: single yes votes Bartlebooth says: The current election will fill two seats on the ARB, and yet we can only vote yes for one player. This means that we must vote yes for the candidate we most want, abstain for our second pick, and vote no for the rest, in order to promote the two ARB would-bes that we like. .. Actually, although two seats would fill the designed maximum for ARB membership, any number of the candidates can be elected; therefore, it is unneccessary to vote "no" on all candidates other than your favourites. Plainly, if we all did, no one would be elected and we would all have to do this over. I don't think anyone likes the single-yes-vote/many-no's feature, or that we are electing an arbitrary number of new members to fill a specified number of seats. The election system needs not only to be repaired, but rewritten. yoof -------------------------- Message 45 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 07:18:27 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Vote limitations I would truly like to see an additional rule. One limiting the number of votes a single player may cast. Proposal: For all the arb-ballots together, the number of votes a player may cast will be limited to the number of open ARB seats available. The(se) vote(s) may be cast in any combination of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. For example, if two seats were available and there were 9 ballots, one eligible player could cast two votes. In any combination of yes, no or abstain. This would certainly eliminate some of the problems and still allows the player some 'NO' votes for any candidate that is particularly offensive to him. -M -------------------------- Message 46 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 07:46:42 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: Vote limitations > For example, if two seats were available and there were 9 ballots, > one eligible player could cast two votes. In any combination of > yes, no or abstain. Yes, but generally there'll be only one seat available. This means each player can EITHER vote yes on someone or vote no on someone. If most players vote yes on someone, which is a natural thing to do, then most players won't vote no on anyone, and, to cut a long story short, we'll end up with nine new ARB members. Which is nice for the resulting ARB list, I suppose, since it'll take a long time before they have to worry about elections again. -------------------------- Message 47 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 08:04:15 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Hmm Joe's got a point there. One seat one vote either way is no good. I still like the idea of voting `no' on people you would never want to see on the ARB. I thought about making the election system change to what exists IRL: namely that you get one `yes' votes and whoever has the most wins. But that's yukky. Why not try to improve from RL. Anyway, how about a combination of Bartlebooth's and Moriah's ideas: You get as many `yes' votes as seats available AND as many `no' votes as seats available. Abstains don't matter, so I say keep as many as you want. So, one seat: one yes and one no. Two seats, two yes and two no. etc I still don't know if such a change is `good' or not though. Opinions? Dred -------------------------- Message 48 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 08:08:57 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Or just add (to one seat-one vote) that only one winner too. The largest 'net' yes votes?? -M -------------------------- Message 49 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 08:36:46 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: voting mechanisms Or we could just remove the only-one-yes restriction. -------------------------- Message 50 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 08:53:30 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) That's really clever Joe. -M -------------------------- Message 51 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 09:02:28 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: voting mechanisms > Or we could just remove the only-one-yes restriction. This avenue came across my mind a while back, and my initial reaction was `that would be no good'...However, now that I've thought about it some, it may not be so bad after all. If my probability and statistical skills weren't so rusty (as if 1 class 5 years ago gave me skills in the first place heh), I'd do some quick calculations to see how likely it is that we'd get a negative outcome (like we just did), and how likely it is we'd get an overly positive outcome (as in, 5 new members for 1 or 2 seats for example). Either one is no good in my book. Any volunteers to try to figure something like that out? -------------------------- Message 52 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 10:45:41 1993 PST From: Tzu'lar (#28424) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Logic behind 'no' votes Well, with all this discussion about how many 'yes' votes a person should get, I can't help but wonder what the point of having 'no' votes in an ARB election is. The seats -have- to be filled, don't they? They can't just be left empty. Unless there is an election on. 'No' votes just seem to be a big headache. No one got elected the first time around, even though there were at least a few qualified people running. It isn't hard to get a reasonable number of 'yes' votes, but I think that under the current system it's going to be almost impossible to NOT get a number of 'no' votes. If RL elections had 'no' votes, I doubt anyone would get elected IRL either. So, I'd like someone to explain why having 'no' votes is such a good idea, or I'll propose that the ARB elections become a 'yes' vote only process. Tzu, wondering if the ARB election would ever end otherwise. -------------------------- Message 53 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:10:36 1993 PST From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: yes and no w00fs The idea of yes and no votes seems undemocratic to me when coupled with the 2-to-1 rule. Essentially people voting no get twice the say as people voting yes. Applied to ballots this just means that there is a large potential barrier to getting anything adopted, which may be good[1]. But applied to elections it is a different thing, since the idea of elections is to choose *somebody*, not nobody. Joe's idea, unlimited yes and no voting, or just yes votes for the number of open seats both sound like good ways to go. The first would be a new method, not used IRL, while the second is the general IRL rule. Lets go with the new. So here's my suggestion: vote yes or no or abstain (or just don't vote at all) on each candidate. Rank is determined by the spread between yes and no and winners are those with the highest rank sufficient to fill the open seats. In order to avoid another cycle of failed arb elections have this this petition say that if passed during an election its rules are immediately implemented - this is not as big a deal as you might think because you are allowed to change your vote at any time during voting. Voters probably won't mind being handed a bunch of extra yes votes to distribute. If we move fast enough on this, we'll be able to have it implemented before the next round of elections closes in 4 weeks and dig ourselves out of this (amusing) hole. [1] Note though that the rules for arb elections were voted in by a better than 2:1 majority, so even this ratio is not a guarantee of infallibility. -------------------------- Message 54 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:11:51 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Joe's clever suggestion Actually, I prefer this to my other alternative. We could justify having an independent vote on each candidate.. But, I think this would only work *IF* we specified that only vacant seats would be filled, and the 'winner(s)' had the largest 'net' yes votes. I REALLY don't want to see 22 seats taken on the ARB.. and no one else have a chance at being elected unless 8 resign. What do you think? 'Course, we STILL could have a futile election with no winners this way too. -M -------------------------- Message 55 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:36:18 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Unlimited yes/no voting I think that even with unlimited yes and no votes, we should still have some kind of a threshold for being voted into office. I'd hate to see us have an election where the person who won had more no votes than yes votes. In that case, I'd rather have nobody win. So, perhaps we only consider letting people with more yes votes than no votes win? -------------------------- Message 56 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:48:18 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: voting Why don't we just skip the public voting? Let them nominate the candidates, and then leave it up to the current ARB members to choose which of them get in. The public still has a say, and we don't end up with this kind of eternal deadlock. -------------------------- Message 57 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:48:44 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: changes First, to Tzu'lar: Being able to cast `no' votes allows a person to reduce the chance of someone getting elected. Hopefully, they would use their `no' votes to reduce the chances of only a few people that they object greatly to being on the ARB. I think this is an advantage over RL elections where you get one `yes' vote only. -------- In light of some of the proposals given here, albeit from only a few people, I'm seriously considering Kilik's proposal. This would indeed be a radical change, and affects the whole ARB election process greatly. Here's some text that might end up in the petition: 6) A qualified voter may cast a single vote per ARB-ballot. That vote may be `yes', `no', or `abstain'. This has the consequence that a voter may cast as many votes of any combination e wishes. 7) After the voting closes, ballots shall be tallied as follows: If a ballot has more `no' votes than `yes' votes, it has failed. If a ballot has more `yes' votes than `no' votes, it has passed. 8) The number of seats available on the ARB determines how many ARB candidates will be added to the ARB: a) If there are the same amount of passed ARB ballots as there are seats, those candidates will be added. b) If there are less passed ballots than there are seats available, those candidates that passed are added to the ARB and another election process is started to fill the vacant seats. c) If there are more passed ballots than there are seats available, the passed ballots shall be ranked according to the spread between the number of `yes' votes and the number of `no' votes on each ballot. The highest ranking candidate(s) shall be added to the ARB. ------------------- Item 3 on the petition would probably be removed if these are added since it would be outdated. What does everyone think of this? Dred -------------------------- Message 58 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:49:28 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Lambda and unlimited yes/no voting Guess I wasn't clear what I meant by 'net' yes votes. I was meaning the net yes votes after the no's were doubled. Perhaps, I should have been clearer. Sorry. -M -------------------------- Message 59 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:52:52 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: Kilik (#2819) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: yes and no w00fs > Joe's idea, unlimited yes and no voting, or just yes votes for the > number of open seats both sound like good ways to go. With yes votes for the number of open seats, we'd still lose. If only one seat is available (which would generally be the case, pending a forced-retirement petition), then we're back in the same drag we have now. > So here's my suggestion: vote yes or no or abstain (or just don't > vote at all) on each candidate. Rank is determined by the spread > between yes and no and winners are those with the highest rank > sufficient to fill the open seats. Is rank a difference or a ratio? In either case, I'd specify something in the case of ties. Probably just put all the tied candidates on the board. -------------------------- Message 60 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 11:58:44 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: Joe (#2612), Kilik (#2819), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: yes and no w00fs > something in the case of ties. Probably just put all the tied > candidates on the board. Oops. Good point: 8) ... ... c) If there are more passed ballots than there are seats available, the passed ballots shall be ranked according to the spread between the number of `yes' votes and the number of `no' votes on each ballot. The highest ranking candidate(s) shall be added to the ARB. If there is a tie amongst these high ranking candidates, then the tied candidates shall both (or all in case of more than a two-way tie) be added to the ARB. Even if this means an increase beyond the 15 member threshold. ------------------------- Also, Kilik suggested that a clause be added that would cause this petition to interrupt an ARB election midstream if this were to become a ballot and pass. I originally had something sort of like that in the petition. Should I put that in? -------------------------- Message 61 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 12:10:04 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: interrupting I guess since we seem to be in an infinite loop, there better be an interrupting the current process clause in this petition, else we'll never see it implemented. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 62 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 12:11:34 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Dred's proposal This is exactly what I envisioned Dred. Thanks. One question, do we really want a 1:1 yes/no ratio or a 2:1 yes/no ratio? (or did i read that wrong?) -M -------------------------- Message 63 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 12:16:05 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: yduJ (#68) and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: interrupting > I guess since we seem to be in an infinite loop, there better be > an interrupting the current process clause in this petition, else > we'll never see it implemented. Well, I think the question was whether we break out of the loop or change things at the end of the current iteration. -------------------------- Message 64 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 13:03:18 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: [Tzu'lar (#28424): Re: changes] Date: Tue Dec 14 13:01:37 1993 PST From: Tzu'lar (#28424) To: Dred (#49925) Subject: Re: changes > First, to Tzu'lar: > > Being able to cast `no' votes allows a person to reduce the chance > of someone getting elected. Hopefully, they would use their `no' > votes to reduce the chances of only a few people that they object > greatly to being on the ARB. I think this is an advantage over RL > elections where you get one `yes' vote only. > > -------- "Hopefully". Which I think in an operative word here. The whole idea of 'no' votes makes the election process into some sort of bizzare, democratic prisoner's dilemma problem, where the punishment is no one getting elected. I always thought that a 'yes' vote for a given candidate implied a 'no' vote for the remaining candidates. While the idea of 'no' votes may seem to make the process more interesting, I doubt it makes it any more efficient. I think going to 'yes' votes only keeps the election process much simpler and easier to handle overall. The last thing we need around Lambda is more complexity. 'Yes' votes only is a simple way to run an election, is easier to judge to see who has won and makes it easier on the voters. Well, actually, given that each voter would now have but a single 'yes' vote, it may well make it harder on the voters. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me (at least). Tzu. -------------------------- Message 65 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 14:53:22 1993 PST From: Bartlebooth (#47818) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Clauses in message 57 I like what you've written there (with additions for ties). I'd like to support keeping 'no' votes. There are many times IRL that I wished I could vote no for some clown, rather than voting yes for a lesser clown as a protest (The Bush/Dukakis presidential campaign comes to mind). On a different subject, what would you think about (in the future) suspending ARB elections from December 20th to January 5th? Large numbers of players are students, and don't have access during this time of year, and thus won't be able to participate in elections. Non-students too, come to think of it, often spend this time with families (many of which don't even own computers, imagine!). Results from elections that occur over this period will be skewed. Bartlebooth -------------------------- Message 66 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 17:42:01 1993 PST From: Rydwi (#58310) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Petition #55802. Please read and consider petition #55802. It's a complement to this one. /Rydwi. -------------------------- Message 67 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 19:13:40 1993 PST From: Bartlebooth (#47818) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Err, better idea... A quick follow up on my last post. Absentee voting for the holiday period is much better than suspending elections. That's what I get for thinking on the fly. Bartlebooth -------------------------- Message 68 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 19:34:16 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:ARB-Terms (#54834), *social-issues (#7233), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Petition #55802 Please do not sign #55802. Instead support *p:fix-arb (#42212), which Dred has put a lot of work into. I think Rydwi is being quite irresponsible as a petition author in signing his petition so soon after creating it, and in not paying attention to the work Dred is doing. Ignore #55802, and should it become a ballot, vote "no". --yduJ -------------------------- Message 69 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 20:35:41 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212), *Petition:ARB-yes (#55802), *social-issues (#7233), and *ARB-Issues (#1139) Subject: Final changes to #42212 I have made what I believe to be the final changes to my petition, *P:fix-ARB-elect #42212. This petition seeks to correct many flaws in the ARB-election system. Everyone please read it and send commentary to the list. I'm going to sign it before I log off. Dred -------------------------- Message 70 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 20:49:40 1993 PST From: Rydwi (#58310) To: *Petition:ARB-Terms (#54834), *social-issues (#7233), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Petition #55802. The main reason for #55802 was that I felt that we had a bit of emergency with the ARB elections. At the same time, I thought (and think) that #42212 was becoming of such quality that we shouldn't rush it. Hence #55802. But now, Dred has managed to give #42212 its final shape, and I'm quite satisfied. Therefore, I'm withdrawing my own petition as soon as he's signed his, and tell everyone that signed mine to sign his instead. With this I hope everyone is satisfied. I'm impressed that I managed to collect the necessary ten sigs in less than eighty minutes, and because of that I'm convinced that the work and discussion put into #42212 will not be in vain. Finally the ARB elections will work as intended. /Rydwi. -------------------------- Message 71 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Tue Dec 14 21:49:24 1993 PST From: fix-ARB-elect (#42212) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), Dred (#49925), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: Dred (#49925), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Dred, the author of Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): `Fixes to the ARB Election Process', has acquired 10 signatures on his petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #42212' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) type `deny #42212' to refuse such approval and then send mail to *Petition:fix-ARB-elect explaining your reasons for doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 72 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Thu Dec 16 12:11:05 1993 PST From: fix-ARB-elect (#42212) To: Dred (#49925), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Petition vetted Reply-to: *Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) The wizard Nosredna has determined that Petition:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): `Fixes to the ARB Election Process' is implementable and has therefore vetted it. -------------------------- Message 73 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Dec 17 08:43:12 1993 PST From: fix-ARB-elect (#42212) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Open Ballot #42212 Ready for Voting Petition #42212 has received enough signatures to transform it into open Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): `Fixes to the ARB Election Process', which is now available for voting. Type `read #42212' to see the text of the proposal and then `vote yes on #42212' to cast your vote in favor of it, `vote no on #42212' to cast your vote against it, or `abstain on #42212' to stop hearing about it. Voting on this ballot will close on Friday, December 31, at 8:43 am, LambdaMOO Standard Time; until then, you can change your vote as often as you wish. You can read (and contribute to) commentary on this proposal on the mailing list named *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect, *Ballot:fix-arb, or *Ballot:arb-elect; type `help mail' for details. -------------------------- Message 74 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Sat Dec 18 21:02:54 1993 PST From: Haakon (#2) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: New implementation notes I have rewritten the implementation notes for this ballots in greater detail to take account of the relative timing of its closure and the ongoing ARB election. Type `impl #42212' to see the notes. -------------------------- Message 75 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 20 06:50:24 1993 PST From: anj (#59447) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: I read all the posts to this and then reread the ballot. The problem with the last election seemd to be that everyone voted yes once and no on everyone else, insuring that no one got in. I started a petition to stop that from happening. Dred asked me to read his petition, which i did, then destroyed mine. Still, the number of no votes has not been limited. I was proposing something like half as many no votes as candidates per voter. Also, how about run-offs? If we get 16 arb members, the possibility of deadlock occurs. -------------------------- Message 76 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 20 08:01:52 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: anj (#59447) and *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: I read all the posts to this and then reread the ballot[...] > Subject: I read all the posts to this and then reread the ballot. > The problem with the last election seemd to be that > everyone voted yes once and no on everyone else, > insuring that no one got in. I started a petition to > stop that from happening. Dred asked me to > > read his petition, which i did, then destroyed mine. Still, the > number of no votes has not been limited. I was proposing something This is true. The number of no votes is not limited. But I -removed- the limit on yes votes. You can do as many yes votes as you want too. In addition, the problem with the unlimited no votes is that they are weighted unfairly. It takes twice as many yes votes as no votes for an ARB-ballot to pass. Which means that a no to yes vote is weighted 2:1. In the new scheme, they have equal weight 1:1. > like half as many no votes as candidates per voter. > Also, how about run-offs? If we get 16 arb members, the > possibility of deadlock occurs. The only way we can get 16 ARB members is (if the ballot passes, that is) when there are ties. Read 7.c.ii. This is in fact, more limiting than the current process, where every passed ballot means an added member. Dred -------------------------- Message 77 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 20 08:11:05 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Hmm I have noticed a small problem with the scheme for dealing with ties. Note this case after a ARB-ballot closes if my ballot passes: Player1 has 80 yes, 30 no Player2 has 70 yes, 50 no Player3 has 40 yes, 20 no Under the ranking, Player1 is at the top with a spread of 50, but Player2 and Player3 each have a spread of 20 and are therefore tied for second rank. According to my system, all three would be added to the ARB to fill the two avalable seats. I'm not sure if this is a bad thing or good thing. I know that if I had caught this earlier, I would have changed the ranking system to only include `true' ties of 40-20 vs 40-20. Where Player2 would be ranked higher than Player3. Therefore causing Player1 and Player2 only to be added. But I dunno, they are equally controversial candidates, but at different levels....So maybe it -is- better this way...I'm unsure. Oh well, can't catch everything...Comments? Dred -------------------------- Message 78 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 20 13:19:08 1993 PST From: anj (#59447) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: right. that's what i was getting at with a run-off. say we start with 20 candidates. have an election in which we get a clear winner and a few (maybe) contennders. They don't even have to be exactly equal. a run-off election could be held to give us a clearer perspective on who's who. (or is that who's whom?) -------------------------- Message 79 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 20 19:36:21 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: anj (#59447) and *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: right. that's what i was getting at[...] > Date: Mon Dec 20 13:19:08 1993 PST > From: anj (#59447) > To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) > Subject: right. that's what i was getting at with a run-off. > say we start with 20 candidates. have an election in > which we get a clear winner and a few (maybe) > contennders. They don't even have to be exactly equal. > a run-off election could be held to give us > > a clearer perspective on who's who. (or is that who's whom?) I actually doubt that it will ever come up, actually. Ties are going to be rare. I don't see that a run-off type of system is going to necessary. Plus, who wants to have ANOTHER election? That's one thing this ballot is addressing. (And please write your letters in the BODY not the SUBJECT. It's really hard to read.) Dred (On the Eleventh Edge) -------------------------- Message 80 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Mon Dec 20 20:03:33 1993 PST From: Rydwi (#58310) To: Dred (#49925) and *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Re: Hmm #55802 ranked passed ballots on yes votes only. But, I am beginning to feel that one yes vote plus one no vote equals zero, and therefore, they really ought to be ranked on spread. Just like #42212 says. /Rydwi. -------------------------- Message 81 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Wed Dec 22 22:17:58 1993 PST From: Lazarus (#50624) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: breaking ties. One way to avoid a tie is to use divide the number of yes votes by the total number of yes and no votes. In the example of 70 'yes' to 50 'no' and 40 'yes' to 20 'no' the rank would be .58 for the 70 'yes' and .67 for the other, making the ballot with the 40 'yes' votes the winner. Alternatively just take the ballot with the highest number of yes votes in a tie situation. In the above example the ballot with 70 'yes' votes would win. Just a thought, Laz -------------------------- Message 82 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Dec 31 08:43:11 1993 PST From: fix-ARB-elect (#42212) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) Subject: Voting closes on ballot #42212: Final Results The voting period for Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): `Fixes to the ARB Election Process' has ended. The final vote count is as follows: In favor: 279 Against: 36 Abstaining: 200 The proposal has passed and will be implemented by the wizards as soon as possible. -------------------------- Message 83 from *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212): Date: Fri Dec 31 08:43:55 1993 PST From: fix-ARB-elect (#42212) To: *Ballot:fix-ARB-elect (#42212) and *Wizard-List (#6428) Subject: Ballot statistics A total of 1277 eligible voters logged in during the ballot period. Of these, 515 people or 40% cast votes of any sort; 315 people or 24% cast `yes' or `no' votes. --------------------------