Democracy in EL

[TirunCollimdus]

IMO Entropy has shown that part of his vision for the game is that part of its development is determined by the players. He wants to have certain aspects of the game out of his control so that the game is flavored by the will of the players. That is why we are having this discussion about what percentage of the vote constitutes a decision. All of the discussion about how Entropy should be controlling the game should be deleted IMO. The topic is what defines democracy not should we have or not have democracy.

 

Entropy wants us to participate in development and wants everyone to have a voice. This is a democratic decision and not a representative one so any reference to legislative bodies should also be canned or deleted. We are not voting as representatives trying to win 2/3s of the vote to make changes. Changes are supposed to be easy to make because being in beta means progressing from beta to complete. You cannot make any progress without any change. The posts here should be about what constitutes a successful democratic vote and how much of a victory margin is required for implementing or not implementing new or changing features.

 

To this point I say we need a majority either way and to account for voting mistakes and misunderstandings we need that majority to be 55% not 50.1%. If you cannot get 55% to vote for something and you cannot get 55% against that same thing then it is too close to call. These decisions since we cannot decide them should be made by Entropy. This leaves the control of the game in Entropy's hands as it should be for all of those who feel there should not be any democracy at all. It gives Entropy the possibility that we will make some decisions but also keeps everyone from being angry or upset because they lost by 1 or 2 votes.

 

I think everyone in this game needs to understand that if you have a vote that fails or succeeds by 1 or 2 votes that it is rightfully Radu's decision to make. It is after all his game. Let Entropy develop the game his way. Let him make polls and make those polls actually make a difference they way he wants them too. Trying to get 2/3s as a majority means there is no point in even posting polls. Entropy would be wasting his time almost every time. Why waste anyone's time doing that?

 

TirunCollimdus

[Entropy]

I'm all for no democracy. I've adapted and enjoyed the changes he's made in the past two years. I don't remember a poll on the cooldown before that was introduced and that was a big change.

 

Actually, that was such a poll and the results were very close to 50%, but slightly more for the cooldowns.

[Orick]

Well I think that like in congress, every topic that is passed should have a winning 2/3 of the votes, so 75%.

75% is 1/4 66% is 2/3 i vote for 65% myself

...75% is 3/4...but I know what you meant...

 

LMAO im a tard...

[Vanyel]

I just wonder if this 50/60/70/whatever majority means a share of all players or only players reading forums/speaking English/etc.

I'm not sure if this, in my opinion very important, issue has been addressed at all.

If it was up to me I would rather start with activating all players in forums, then think about a way to provice some democracy.

Oh, I don't think democracy or anything similar might work in this case.

 

The important forum votes are announced in the game, so everyone can vote.

Also, everyone can get their account registered if they PM Aislin (or me) in the game. We can't have automatic registrations due lots of spambots that register every day. I don't want to have v1agr4 and lolita posts every day.

 

As for the English thing, well, people should learn English. Many people here, including me and you are not native English speakers, yes? Furthermore, voting doesn't require much understanding of the English language, they can always ask a friend to translate it for them.

 

By activating players I meant encouraging them to forums, not making accounts for them on spot. Sorry for inconvenience.

 

<edit>

I tend to agree with few people posting here. Democracy ain't a good idea for this or any other game. Major changes should be decided only by people taking all responsibility for them. It's easy to imagine that after some votings there will be a load of whiners who will blame you/Roja/moderators/whoever for 'fucking up' their games and no polls will make them act different.

The aformentioned Council may be not a bad idea, yet, it would have to work slightly different than almost 3 years ago (speaking based on my own experience as a representative responsible for potions and alchemy). Such a group of (maybe chosen via voting) advisors has a chance to work out in an interesting way.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Kheres

[Entropy]

The forums are constantly mentioned in the game (at least a few times per week). If people don't feel like using them, I can't do anything about it. It's sort of like people who don't go out to vote IRL. They can't complain about the laws and their elected officials if they didn't go to voted.

[Ulrih]

I think the best way would be to make some kind of polls or surveys that would not be directly connected with an upcoming change or update. This way you could adjust the ideas according to the poll results.

 

Setting up some responsible players that could be asked what do they think about some aspects of the game would also be nice IMO.

 

Poll results? I think binding important changes to 50%+1 might sometimes upset 49% of the players. But with small changes it might be ok. Anyway I think a 51% result should not tie your hands.

[Enly]

Well... after reading through the thread. Here is what i have to say.

 

I don't really like posting on the poll discussion and getting into arguments most of the time, because really it all goes back to the fact, that I don't care. Sure I prefer one side of the argument, and normally vote that way. But I don't really care if the other side of the poll is the one that wins. Because I know that in the end the final choice is made by someone who knows the game and won't choose something that is really bad for the game. I dislike the idea of a majority vote because of this simple reason, people are stupid, I am, you are, we all are. We all make bad choices a lot, and I don't want changes in the game to rest on people who could be making the wrong choice. A council with smart, long time players, would be an okay option I suppose. But I really rather like the way things are now to be honest. If we go to strictly majority votes I'd be worried the final majority may not always be right. And yes i know, thats the way things are in the real world, majority votes... well guess what... people make stupid votes sometimes and someone has to go back and propose a change because it went wrong. It just happened in my state this fall, a ballot measure didn't go as planned because people didn't vote smart considering all options, so they had to propose something new to fix the problem. Honestly, and no offense to anyone, i don't want descions for the game resting on people that have a good chance of voting wrong, I also don't want that descion to be made by someone who threatens to leave the game if it doesn't go their way... Mostly I'd just prefer to know that final choice is being made by Entropy, who knows the game. Or a council of long time players that know the game.

[Marcvs]

Starting from the point that, as Entropy says, this is not a democracy (and it could not be a democracy, imo, while the game is structured as it is now), I'm with the people who think that we could need a double-level voting system.

 

For the decisions that doesn't have a crucial impact to the game, I think that the simply majority (50% + 1) can work fine (for example, a vote on if a resource have to become less or more hard to find, if a monster have to be stronger or weaker, and so on).

 

For the facts that can affect deeply the whole game, I think that a more high majority is needed. And, in this case, the 2/3 of the people is fine (66,6.. %). I think that in this polls we need also a Quorum...that can be about 200-300 players. If there is a quorum the options in the pool have to be three and not two: yes, no, and "null vote", so also who doesn't care or doesn't understand the matter of the voting can partecipate at least for the quorum.

 

Entropy itself will chose if a poll will follow the first or the second voting system.

 

Some states (like mine) have a voting system like this: for common laws they use, in the parliament, the simply majority and, for the most important votes (like to change the constitution) they ask to the parliament a large majority.

[Florian]

Sorry I didn't read this thread completely. so feel free to delete this post if I just repeat other people's ideas.

 

First of all I really like the idea of votings, but:

- votes on forums are not a good idea, I think there should be a NPC to count the votes (so only people in game vote and not everybody registered on the forums)

- there should be something like EL maturity to be allowed to vote (my numbers are just examples)

-- char must be 30 days in game, at least 90 hours played

-- char must have a certain sum of experience

(maybe the same rules as in "no newbie can find removal stones" could apply)

I'm sure you can think of a lot more ways to prevent manipulations.

[Euric]

Sorry I didn't read this thread completely. so feel free to delete this post if I just repeat other people's ideas.

 

First of all I really like the idea of votings, but:

- votes on forums are not a good idea, I think there should be a NPC to count the votes (so only people in game vote and not everybody registered on the forums)

- there should be something like EL maturity to be allowed to vote (my numbers are just examples)

-- char must be 30 days in game, at least 90 hours played

-- char must have a certain sum of experience

(maybe the same rules as in "no newbie can find removal stones" could apply)

I'm sure you can think of a lot more ways to prevent manipulations.

 

this is a good idea, maybe need some more restrictions but i like the ingame vote.. open to the game, not only the forums that were made for the game.

[Hex]

What about alts?

[Entropy]

The reason why ingame votes are not reliable is that someone can have 20 alts, level them up a little bit to qualify for voting, then vote with all of them.

[TirunCollimdus]

In this topic we will TALK (not vote) about the democracy in EL, and we will decide what it means, and how it should be used.

 

First, I have to mention that EL is in no way a democracy. It can be best defined as a oligarchy, or perhaps despotism.

The rulling class of EL is nice enough to sometimes permit it's humble subjects to decide on various aspects of the game, through democratic vote. The majority wins.

 

Now we have to define what majority means (in this context). Is it 50%? 60%? 75%?

Feel free to discuss, then I'll make a poll where you vote, and that decision will be in effect until the end of 2008, retroactively (ie. it will include the cap vote too).

 

All the new polls about decision making from now on will be based on this definition of majority.

 

So discuss about this subject first, debate the merits of each option, and prepare to vote when the poll is done.

 

 

Can we please stop telling Entropy not to make polls when that is what he wants to do and get on to the business of making the decision that he actually asked us for in the first place?

 

I know a lot of people want to see a completely different way of doing things or not doing anything at all. Entropy responds to the ideas for panels/councils etc... by saying 'been there done that got the t-shirt' and making it clear he does not want to retread failed ideas. The idea of having the decision be no polls at all should not even be considered if you read Entropy's first post. This is what he wants. He makes the rules even if that means giving us a chance to make 'rules' ourselves. Let's stay on topic and finish this thread so that we can get to a vote. Please.

 

TirunCollimdus

Edited December 16, 2007 by TirunCollimdus

[Usl]

A lot of people already wrote a lot of neat stuff, so I will keep this short.

1. Do not run votes, run polls -- just asking people opinions, not asking them to take a decision
   
2. based on the outcome of the poll, both results and comments, devise and propose a plan of action
   
3. put the plan through a vote: if 2/3 of the players reject it, consider it vetoed and drop the idea, otherwise go on.
   

From what I have seen lately, most people tend to be in favour or against some change based on whether it favours them, at that exact moment. I have even seen people going against some change because it would favour stronger players, and be in favour of the same change three months later when they had become stronger players... Also, there is an incredible inertia in the community: on average, people would rather keep things as they are, so in my opinion it is better to have a quorum for vetoing changes, rather than one to approve them.

 

A semi-informal advisory council could be a neat idea: ask to people you trust and respect for advice, there may always be something that escaped your attention. But keep the strategic direction in your hands, at least you don't have to worry whether gicu will be better off in PK...

 

Just my 2 euro cents worth, of course...

[Florian]

The reason why ingame votes are not reliable is that someone can have 20 alts, level them up a little bit to qualify for voting, then vote with all of them.

And how do you avoid that problem on the forums?

[Entropy]

And how do you avoid that problem on the forums?

 

 

You need a valid e-mail address, and you need to be MANUALLY approved by an admin.

So while there still can be some abuse, it's much harder to do it.

[TirunCollimdus]

A lot of people already wrote a lot of neat stuff, so I will keep this short.

1. Do not run votes, run polls -- just asking people opinions, not asking them to take a decision
   
2. based on the outcome of the poll, both results and comments, devise and propose a plan of action
   
3. put the plan through a vote: if 2/3 of the players reject it, consider it vetoed and drop the idea, otherwise go on.
   

From what I have seen lately, most people tend to be in favour or against some change based on whether it favours them, at that exact moment. I have even seen people going against some change because it would favour stronger players, and be in favour of the same change three months later when they had become stronger players... Also, there is an incredible inertia in the community: on average, people would rather keep things as they are, so in my opinion it is better to have a quorum for vetoing changes, rather than one to approve them.

 

A semi-informal advisory council could be a neat idea: ask to people you trust and respect for advice, there may always be something that escaped your attention. But keep the strategic direction in your hands, at least you don't have to worry whether gicu will be better off in PK...

 

Just my 2 euro cents worth, of course...

 

 

This is the only suggestion that is not what Entropy asked for that actual is worth considering. Asking for vetoe votes instead of approval votes and setting the veto at 66% or higher would be a great idea IMO. This would favor change as anything that we are allowed to do as players should. It would keep the discourse on the threads a lot more friendly too since there would not be anyone fighting for an idea. It would be up to the nay sayers to convince enough to vote with them. There would be no close votes for and against. If we got close to the veto margin no one voting for the idea would feel they had popular support to keep the idea alive.

 

The last council failed and IMO so would any other council we could appoint or that could be chosen. I think if Entropy wants some perspective outside of his development team he should PM players on the forum or in game and require the discussion be confidential. He would only do this with players he trusted to keep this confidentiality. No council would be needed and he could change the players he was asking depending on circumstances.

 

TirunCollimdus