Before I begin, I'd like to mention that none of this is meant as an excuse for any poor performance or leadership during the duration of CAP8.
I'd like to mention that during my time as TL, I had planned on having a large amount of discussion in order for us to be able to come out with the best result, and as such, I participated in the discussion very actively in the earlier stages of CAP8. Then, the complaints started pouring in that I was being TOO active in the discussion, from both random and veteran alike, and a few of them were too high up in CAP influence for me to merely ignore. I was told by one particular influential user that the community would dictate who would enter the next poll and who would be voted on, so I took a backseat on the discussion threads, monitoring but rarely participating. If there was anything I felt was desperately needed to be included, I introduced the idea in the thread and have another user post it. I wasn't sure where the line between democracy and dictatorship would have been drawn.
As for the passing of "bad" poll options, I went by two main criteria:
Response and popularity in the discussion threads
If there was positive discussion regarding something, it was allowed through. I felt that it was most important that the ones that were subject to constructive criticism were allowed. If the response was extremely negative and it didn't change, it was still allowed through as to avoid any controversy, but it seems as though this was not the correct approach.
Recognition on the server and IRC
I would ask various members that were online as to their opinion on certain options, namely Deck Knight, Magmortified and Vader, as well as whoever else was in the main chat at the moment. If everyone agreed that there was no legitimate, competent reason that something should be left out, it was kept in. Very few of the submissions were not approved, such as a few concepts and some of the movepools.
I personally believe that I have had extensive conversations with many users about each discussion, getting opinions from many points of view, as to be able to be more democratic and open. Even if it hasn't historically had a great effect on the poll options, I feel that at least the second one, feedback from prominent servergoers and IRC users should be a definite option for the TL to use while considering poll slates.
As for Doug's proposal about more TL leadership, I do not feel that the need for any caucuses is very practical. I think that forgotten practice of high quality slates that was mentioned is the most beneficial and efficient.
DougJustDoug said:
If you look at early CAP projects and read the process guide carefully, you'll notice that we never used to let broad community vote determine ANY slate for CAP polls. The general pattern of the rules is this:
1) A discussion thread allows an open cattle-call for ideas and possible options to be presented and discussed
2) During the discussion, the Topic Leader gets an idea of who are the most intelligent and active participants, and which ideas are most popular amongst the non-idiots in the community.
3) If the aspect of the pokemon requires a submission (stat spread, movepool, etc) -- then the TL rewards a few of the best discussion participants, and asks them to make a submission.
4) If the aspect simply requires 10 options to be pulled into a slate, the Topic Leader uses feedback in the discussion thread to determine which of the high-quality options are most popular amongst knowledgeable, literate, and interested members of the community. The TL picks the top 10 options, and then serves it up to the community to decide the final winner.
This seems like the best idea, but I have a prerequisite before openly supporting it. I personally feel we must address which polls will be subject to this, because something like the Concept Poll probably can't have proper discussion leading to the selection of certain members. (Also, why the hell did I never hear of this?)