Policy Review Policy Review - CAP Round Table

[ParadOxymoron]

we already have a process for deciding ties that was just discussed and approved. I personally think that adds too much elitism to the this round table.

=/

I just don't want anything to lose by a vote or two, that's all. It's like X-Act says. If there'd been a revote, or if people could change their votes, Fidgit definitely would have been Electric. And then who knows where we'd be?

 

[tennisace]

=/

I just don't want anything to lose by a vote or two, that's all. It's like X-Act says. If there'd been a revote, or if people could change their votes, Fidgit definitely would have been Electric. And then who knows where we'd be?

Losing by a small margin is still losing: see 2000 Elections.

 

[ParadOxymoron]

Losing by a small margin is still losing: see 2000 Elections.

haha

I just don't like it when people talk about the 2000 elections here. Because Bush cheated, you see. The Supreme Court decision to not do a recount was intellectually dishonest and irresponsible, and all the neutral newspapers that did studies later said that Gore won Florida.

But anyway. Yes We Can, so as far as I'm concerned, all that is irrelevant.

(And for the sake of argument, in Georgia there's a mandatory runoff vote if the senator wins with less than 51% of the vote. That's where I got the idea from.)

 

[tennisace]

Yeah but that would clog up the forum and bog down the process really. A win is a win imo, if there's no evidence of foul play (which has only been once).

 

[darkie]

Uh.. let's keep this to CaP politics.

 

[eric the espeon]

Agreeing with tennis/RBG, the round table should be for deciding tough PR issues and picking TLs. It should not get involved with Creation polls.
Those should always stay a public vote and be final, anything else would undermine the democracy in the Creation process.
Edit: first time there was a chance to go of topic and I avoided it :D

 

[DougJustDoug]

I think I am going to implement the Voting Panel proposal I made, with the caveat that a special panel would be convened for revision votes.

However, I have a few sticking points that need to be clarified:

What about Topic Leader candidates serving on the panel? In the current system, they cannot be on the panel. However, if the panel will serve for Policy voting as well, then perhaps they definitely should be allowed on the panel.

I originally assumed all TL nominees would be on the panel, however they would not be allowed to vote on TL. But, then I realized -- What if some random noob throws his name in the hat for TL? Wouldn't that be embarrassing as hell to have your name up for TL, and not even get named to the CAP Voting Panel? Ouch.

This situation could be avoided by selecting the Voting Panel first, and then only allowing Topic Leaders to be nominated from that list. However, that could stretch out the start of the CAP process a little longer. Not the worst thing in the world, but still.

I'm interested if there are any better ideas of how to handle this particular sticking point.

And one more thing -- can you suggest a better name than Voting Panel? I'm not too keen on the term "Round Table", only because it doesn't lend itself to a name for those who are on it -- Round Tabler? Round Table Member? Ugh...

There's got to be a better name that isn't too cutesy, or too self-important-sounding. Suggestions?

 

[Elevator Music]

Knights? ; )

Bandwagoning tennis and eric, but purely because it makes sense to do that. I'd rather keep this round table out of the community polls as much as we can. Save it for revisions. I'm impartial about them picking TLs. I guess it'd work fine.


Incredbly off topic, love the avy darkie. Can I be queen? ?_? (too bad I don't get to use big sized avies).

 

[jagged_angel]

I'd rather keep this round table out of the community polls as much as we can. Save it for revisions.

But the general consensus seems to be that the 'Round Table' won't be involved in revisions!
A separate voting panel of experienced CAP Server users would be formed for that, chosen by the CAP Server mods.
This makes sense as the 'Round Table' would be for TL Selection, any required PR voting and would not necessarily have playtested CAP pokemon alot.

This situation could be avoided by selecting the Voting Panel first, and then only allowing Topic Leaders to be nominated from that list. However, that could stretch out the start of the CAP process a little longer. Not the worst thing in the world, but still

DJD I would definitely go with this. The best way to do it would be as you already have written in the Process Guide -
Concept Submissions opens simultaneously with TL Nominations and Voting Panel Nominations. That way any TL candidate would have to make a post for their pitch to be TL in addition to a pitch to be on the Voting Panel. You can't nominate yourself for both at the same time and you can't write exactly the same thing for both. The TL is not decided on until the voting panel has been chosen, thus if you are a TL candidate and you are rejected from the voting panel - it's pretty clear you were never going to be a TL. It does send a tough message but it's important to let people know that if they're That underqualified they really shouldn't have run for TL in the first place.

I agree there needs to be a better name than Round Table. It sounds way too heroic for a bunch of experienced voters. I would suggest CAP Senate and Senator for names, but that does sound quite grandiose.
CAP Committee or CAP Representatives might be better.

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

Despite the fact of not voicing my opinion about the topic at hand, I've been skimming through the pages and mostly understand what's going on here. Have to agree with Tennis and Eric about keeping this "Round Table" out of public polls and only within revisions and probably policy review threads.

And one more thing -- can you suggest a better name than Voting Panel? I'm not too keen on the term "Round Table", only because it doesn't lend itself to a name for those who are on it -- Round Tabler? Round Table Member? Ugh...

Noble CAP Knights of the Round Table? Pretty much what EM said thought I honestly have to say that I like the name "Round Table". Image it like this people, Doug is King Artur and the other panelist are his loyal knights. They discussion about important things over a "round table", each listerning to one other's ideas and/or opinion. That would make a sweet image in anyone's mind. If you truly don't like the Round Table idea, CAP Congress would probably be a better name.

 

[darkie]

I would say to just take names from already existing systems in government, including:
~Parliament
~House
~Congress
~Senate
~Committee
~Court
~Assembly
~Association
~Syndicate
~Agency
~Bureau

From these, I like (because are easy to make individual): Senate and Congress. They can easily be changed to Senator and Congressman/woman, respectively. Since gender doesn't really matter on the internet (lol), I'm going to back Senate.

 

[tennisace]

Personally I like Knights of the Round Table, but it's way too informal. Agreeing with Senate, in the Roman sense of the word.

I also agree with Doug's proposal.

 

[eric the espeon]

I don't have a problem with "Round Table" but Senate also sounds fine to me.

What exactly would the guidelines be for who the mods should let in?

I agree with ja's suggestion about the time to select the Panel.

 

[Elevator Music]

jagged, just clarifying I meant revisions to the process, not to pokemon. I actually forgot we did revisions to pokemon while I was typing up the post, which is probably why I only said revisions.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I like the name Senate because it implies a limited term, and it properly connotes the function of helping make policy. I don't like Senate because it sounds very haughty. I fear that people may get the wrong impression from it. I can only imagine the gossip...

"Did you hear the latest from the noobs over in the CAP Forum? They're making themselves 'Senators' now. lol... Yeah, I think we need to make some 'Vice Presidents' over in Wifi. And how about some Governors in Firebot? rofl...."

I'd really like to stay away from terms that sound too self important. 'Committee' is a fairly good term, from the list posted by Darkie. Perhaps we could call this the "Policy Committee"? It's a little clunky, but it ties in nicely with Policy Review.

I want a baseline requirement to be that any member of this Committee must have been actively involved through the entire duration of the most recent CAP project. Involvement in multiple CAP projects is preferred. But, even if someone was involved in past CAP projects, if they were not around for CAP5, then they really are not "current" on the state of the CAP project and/or server.

It is essential that the membership on this panel is up-to-date. That's the reason we will form a new committee before each CAP project. There will be no "honorary members" or members selected simply because they are popular and generally respected.

"Actively involved" means that you have posted regularly with intelligent contributions to the discussions. Lurking is not "active involvement". Voting is not "active involvement".

Posting popular opinions is not a requirement. Posting intelligent opinions is a requirement. It's perfectly OK if someone that is not well-liked, is selected to be on the Policy Committee. This is not a popularity contest. It is recognition of a certain level of activity and knowledge about the CAP project. Rulebreaking is not just unpopular -- it's an example of LACK of knowledge about the CAP project. If you've been infracted heavily in the CAP forum in the past, do not expect to be selected to the Policy Committee, regardless of your activity level.

These are just a few ideas. Comments welcome.

 

[tennisace]

As a small colliery to your new set of guidelines, which I completely agree with, I would say that those who go against the popular opinion are probably more likely to make it on the panel; we don't want mindless sheep here. There's a difference between "going against popular opinion and supporting your own beliefs" and "going against anything and everything". One is productive in a Devil's Advocate sense, the other is counter-productive.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

We will implement a Policy Committee whose responsibilities are:

• Selecting a Topic Leader for the CAP Project
• Creating Policy Review topics
• Voting in Policy Review polls

This committee will not vote for pokemon revisions.

The general membership guidelines and process is outlined in posts above. These rules will be detailed in the Process Guide.