Make Admin Votes Public...

[BTs_GhostSniper]

To Mauti and Elandrion:

Well, why don't we just let the majority rule and put it up for a vote to the entire Battle League?

I propose we have a Battle League-wide vote on this issue.  Should the Admins Votes be public or private?

[Aramarth]

lol GS. There is one problem, someone has to call the vote and organize it. Not to mention recognize the outcome. Only guys I can think of to do that are Mauti and Elan.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

lol GS. There is one problem, someone has to call the vote and organize it. Not to mention recognize the outcome. Only guys I can think of to do that are Mauti and Elan.

I know, that post I left asking for that was me asking Mauti and Elan to organize the vote....sorry, I should have been more clear who that was meant for.

[alaric]

GS, YabbSE polls are easy to defraud.

I was also thinking, on a topic more closely related to this thread, that the role of admins sometimes parallels that of a judiciary. When a panel of judges votes on something, their votes are made public as well as their thoughts and opinions as to why they voted the way they did.

There will always be somebody unhappy with the outcome of any vote. The best you can do is just explain the reasoning behind it.

As for the threat of continued and consistent harassment of admins. Both Evill and the BL have solutions to that problem. They're called bans.

["Sixhits"]

Alaric, that's the first time the opening of votes up side has made sense to me. Comparing it to judicial rulings.

Only worry: if every vote must be backed by opinions that clarify their reasoning then the BL Admins are going to be doing a heck of a lot of busy work.

[Aramarth]

Well that isn't "opening up records" at all. That is merely asking us to post a supporting and dissenting opinion no the matter. That already happens sometimes, but I guess we could make it more formal and reliable.

[BFG]

Only worry: if every vote must be backed by opinions that clarify their reasoning then the BL Admins are going to be doing a heck of a lot of busy work.

Well yes and no.. its not like they don't exist in the forums so it would be a matter of just putting a statement up in the BL explaining how this decision was made and why. personally i think this would benifit both the community and the admins -  community dosn't need to know who specificy voted one way or another, but they do need to know why the issue was voted on and why the given conclusion was drawn.

Thanks

["Sixhits"]

Ok, so something like the Supreme Court.

RULING: xy and z

A Supporting Opinion for xy and z.

and

A Discenting Opinion against xy and z.

No one is required to to write. One Admin pro writes the Supporting, one Amin against writes the Discenting.

This would satisfy me because it wouldn't force Admins to defend their vote: they'd have an advocate either way.

Those that have something to say will get a formal place to say it. Those that just want to vote will be allowed to just cast a vote.


thoughts?

[alaric]

sixhits, are you thinking of just summarizing the comments of the admins and stripping out the names?

when we vote now, we do generally put down a few brief comments on why we voted that way, we could just collect all those together and post that under a "supporting" or "dissenting" section, sans names. this would allow for the reasons for voting for and against it to be made public without the potentially divisive effect.

["Sixhits"]

sixhits, are you thinking of just summarizing the comments of the admins and stripping out the names?

when we vote now, we do generally put down a few brief comments on why we voted that way, we could just collect all those together and post that under a "supporting" or "dissenting" section, sans names. this would allow for the reasons for voting for and against it to be made public without the potentially divisive effect.

That's a great idea!

Here's what I was thinking, in case it matters:

For each Ruling made there would be three parts. The Ruling, a For Opinion, and an Against opinion. Each opinion would be written by a Named Admin.

For example:

Question before the BL: Can Sixhits be named King of the BL?
Ruling: No, Sixhits will not be named King of the BL.
For (in favor of Sixhits being named King of the BL)
  Written by :MOD: BFG - "Sixhits is smart, stable and a true genius.    
  He should be King."
Against (against Sixhits being named King of the BL)
  Written by alaric - "Sixhits is an idiot. He has no experience in the
   BL. He is incredibly contrarian. Besides, the BL is democratic and
   does not need a King."
Total Votes: Pro - 2, Against - 10

I'd expect most Opinions would be more robust that these silly examples.

Vocal Admins sould offer to write either the For or Against opinion. Admins who simply voted and didn't feel terribly strong about it either way wouldn't be forced to defend their views.

I think it's a good compromise.

[alaric]

I was thinking pretty similar only including all comments made in the vote thread with just the names removed.

Example:

--------------
Question before the BL: Should Sixhits be named King of the BL?

Ruling: No, Sixhits will not be named King of the BL

Comments in favor of Sixhits being named King of the BL:

• He's a damn hippie.
• He wears the right clothes.
• I'm his common law wife.

Comments against Sixhits being named King of the BL:

• He's a damn hippie.
• Kings are bad, uh, and stuff.
• No, Rapid should be made King of the BL. But Sixhits can be his queen.

--------------


This way all reasons for voting for and against are outlined. Also, much simpler from the admin side of things because we don't have to write our reasons for voting for and against a second time.



---changed formatting for easier reading

["Sixhits"]

You've sold me, alaric.

Next question: would there be a public face on the Ruling? Continuing our example:

--------------
Question before the BL: Should Sixhits be named King of the BL?

Ruling: No, Sixhits will not be named King of the BL

Comments in favor of Sixhits being named King of the BL:

• He's a damn hippie.
• He wears the right clothes.
• I'm his common law wife.

Comments against Sixhits being named King of the BL:

• He's a damn hippie.
• Kings are bad, uh, and stuff.
• No, Rapid should be made King of the BL. But Sixhits can be his queen.

--------------

For questions of concerns regarding this decsion, PM alaric and :MOD: BFG

[alaric]

Normal procedure should be fine. When people have questions about a ruling they generally just open a thread and address it to all admins, I don't see why it should be different here.

The idea is to get the reasoning out while maintaining the solidarity, having questions directed towards a particular admin would undermine that.

If it's a legit question that should be fine. If it's flamebait, to the spam sewer-works it goes...

["Sixhits"]

Cool. This seems like a real solution.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Cool. This seems like a real solution.

I agree. With Sixhits.  Amazingly.  lol