Policy Review Policy Review - Registered Voting in the CaP Projects

[tennisace]

Approved by DougJustDoug via PM.

Disclaimer:

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpos...86&postcount=2

This is an idea I recently came up with to help with the massive amounts of newly registered people coming and voting with little to no prior experience or knowledge of the past projects and the process as a whole.

What would happen is before the next CaP starts, everyone who wishes to vote at any time in the process would have to fill out a short questionnaire pertaining to past projects and the process itself. These would be sent in via PM to a designated person (or more), who would tally the right answers. This would almost totally eliminate c/p-ing the answers off of an "answer thread". The answers to the questions would be very general knowledge and easily found if they searched the forum for a couple minutes. Questions like: "Who was the first TL and what pokemon was created?" would be acceptable. Questions like: "In detail, write a short essay about the changes in the metagame that took place after each pokemon were introduced." would not be acceptable.

If the applicant passes with at least 65% right, they would be put on a list of registered voters. This list would last forever, once you register, you're set. Registrations will also be accepted during an ongoing project, to allow more voters in. If a person is not registered, but still votes, their votes will only count in an event of a tie, or not at all.

All in all, I feel that this will encourage more people to learn about the CaP project, and help them make more informed votes. This would be like becoming a citizen in a way, where before you can become naturalized, you need to pass a test.

 

[Deucalion2]

Fair enough. I'd support this. Especially if one of the questions was "Who helped to co-write the first warstory ever to feature a CaP Pokemon?" (I could be famous!) But, no, srsly, it would help prevent drive-by voting, which on some of the polls, namely typing, can be a big problem. Although, metagame changes would need to be avoided. I've been here right from Syclant, but I have no idea how the metagame has changed because I've never actually downloaded Shoddy on my new computer. I've only ever played with Syclant and Revenankh. I could have a guess if pushed though - Togekiss increase is the first thing off the top of my head, amirite? (If you want to know why I haven't downloaded Shoddy, it is because I prefer the theorymon to the actual playing)

 

[Wyverii]

There's ups and downs to this idea. On one hand the selection process will pick people who'll be better equipped to increase the overall quality of CaP Pokemon and encourage the more involved newer members to research into the project and perhaps become a full time participant. On the flipside it could scare away other new members and promote elitism.

We're not the most popular server to begin with but I think it might be worth testing for the sake of seeing the results. It's too difficult for me personally to gauge the effect this'll have in the CaP forum by theorizing alone however I think paired with your other idea this would be great for increasing the overall quality of members within the server.

 

[Syprus]

I would support this idea aswell. It's good to let the newbies to learn about the CaP project, past and present. Hopefully some arn't so lazy and quit on it. =\

 

[tennisace]

There's ups and downs to this idea. On one hand the selection process will pick people who'll be better equipped to increase the overall quality of CaP Pokemon and encourage the more involved newer members to research into the project and perhaps become a full time participant. On the flipside it could scare away other new members and promote elitism.

I'm only slightly worried about the flip-side though. We already are slightly elitist as it is, but increasing the knowledge base should help make more solid posters.

We're not the most popular server to begin with but I think it might be worth testing for the sake of seeing the results. It's too difficult for me personally to gauge the effect this'll have in the CaP forum by theorizing alone.

Theorymon only goes so far =/

 

[omgthatkid]

I like this I guess.
But that probably means I'll have to go do some research since I started participating in this CAP project.
But I do know Hyra was TL for one project, so that's a start.

 

[tennisace]

I like this I guess.
But that probably means I'll have to go do some research since I started participating in this CAP project.
But I do know Hyra was TL for one project, so that's a start.

That's the whole point of this idea, to force people to look at the past projects to see in what direction the project as a whole is going in. Also he was TL in CAP2.

EDIT: Mth Post!

 

[Syprus]

That's the whole point of this idea, to force people to look at the past projects to see in what direction the project as a whole is going in. Also he was TL in CAP2.

EDIT: Mth Post!

But we might lose some members if they're too lazy to look back and research. We just have to wait and see.

P.S: Gratz on 1000th post. =)

 

[omgthatkid]

Oh I realize that.
I have done some back research into the project.
But I was just expressing my "disinterest" in studying the site.
Studying isn't really my thing.
I hate memorizing specifics.
That's why I don't really like memorize dates for History classes.

 

[tennisace]

What members exactly would we lose? It takes like 2 minutes at most to flip back to Page 10 of the forum and find the final CAP1 thread, then answer most of the other questions going back to page 1. It's not like it would be a super-hard test, just general knowledge of the project. If we lose some lazy people, good riddance, because they're probably too lazy to make a serious contribution anyways.\

Edit: Its not really memorization, more like an open book worksheet.

 

[Deck Knight]

Resident killjoy here.

I'm against this for a few reasons.

1. Makes CAP even less accessible.

Per Doug's last Policy Review post, we already have problems attracting new members to the server. Institution what amounts to a "lurk moar" test in order to participate does not do our image any favors.

2. Practical concerns.

Who will handle the test PMs? Whenever a new CAP is created, do we update the test or just leave it as is, hoping people will search for topics from 6 months ago to find their answers? If a TL accidentely counts a non-registered voter and it decides a vote, do we have to do it all over again?

What about click polls? I know there's an option for your name to be seen with your vote,but that means the TL has to compare the clicked list to the registered voter lists. Some polls have hundreds of votes on them.

3. Doesn't really improve quality for the cost.

Our current system has yet to really lead us astray, and this is because we have strong TLs that cut out the garbage.

In addition, just because you can pass the test to become a registered voter doesn't mean you know diddly about how a certain movelist or type would impact the metagame. Essentially what this tries to do is increase the quality of voters by instituting a test that has more to do with general knowledge than actual relevant battle or metagame experience. There's no way to tell that implementing this more convoluted, exclusive process is improving the quality of our end product.

In summary, implementing a test to register voters, even if its a one-shot, only complicates the already complex job of a TL. There is no way to guage whether it will increase the quality of our end products, and its exclusionary nature means it will decrease what is already a problem for us in accessibility.

It is impossible to n00b-proof a community project like this. Why give the TL's more work and headaches?

EDIT: Instead of a process for registering voters, maybe if we found a way to reward new users for demonstrating knowledge of the project(s) without tying it to the ability of participating, we might accomplish our goal without making CAP less accessible. Maybe a CAP tutor program or something, with a sig. banner as a prize.

 

[TAY]

I'll support anything that promotes intelligent discussion.

Though I won't have a hand in its creation, Tennis implied in the OP that the questions will be pretty easy to answer if you're even remotely competent at maneuvering around the forum. So pretty much the only people left out are those who are either too stupid to use the "Search" feature, or are too lazy to fill out and submit the questionnaire. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by assuming that we don't want those people to be posting heavily in the CaP process threads.

One last thing, would asking others for answers be against the rules? I know it seems like a no-brainer that the answer would be no, but there really isn't any way to enforce it. I suppose you could just tell the community members not to reveal answers, and threaten to disqualify anyone who is known to have received/given answers, but even then I'm sure it would still happen =/ .

 

[Syprus]

Well, I see what you mean. It's still a pretty good idea to have an "open book test" to see if you're knowledge about the CaP projects are good enough.

 

[Bass]

Although I happy with the results of CAP 4, I am still bitter about how some of the processes went (Especially the primary typing polls, which I felt were overly influenced by the "noob" vote). Thus, I wholeheartedly agree with tennisace0227 because it would ensure that all of those that vote during the process are only those that know what they are doing.

 

[tennisace]

One last thing, would asking others for answers be against the rules? I know it seems like a no-brainer that the answer would be no, but there really isn't any way to enforce it. I suppose you could just tell the community members not to reveal answers, and threaten to disqualify anyone who is known to have received/given answers, but even then I'm sure it would still happen =/ .

It would and it wouldn't. The thing with this kind of cheating is, you're still seeing the answers to the general knowledge questions. Posting it on the forum would be forbidden, but we can't regulate PMs. So while if we catch someone cheating, we can disqualify them, but other than that, we can't do much. It shouldn't be hard enough to force someone to cheat though.

Resident killjoy here.

I'm against this for a few reasons.

1. Makes CAP even less accessible.

Per Doug's last Policy Review post, we already have problems attracting new members to the server. Institution what amounts to a "lurk moar" test in order to participate does not do our image any favors.

Actually I believe it does, because it forces people right off the bat to have at least some knowledge about the project before participating.

2. Practical concerns.

Who will handle the test PMs? Whenever a new CAP is created, do we update the test or just leave it as is, hoping people will search for topics from 6 months ago to find their answers? If a TL accidentely counts a non-registered voter and it decides a vote, do we have to do it all over again?

What about click polls? I know there's an option for your name to be seen with your vote,but that means the TL has to compare the clicked list to the registered voter lists. Some polls have hundreds of votes on them.

A small group of people would, probably the same people who vote for TL. Also, as I said, once you pass it, you pass it for life. The test will be updated, but will only apply to new people to the project. That will also discourage cheating a bit, by changing the test every couple months.

The counting and keeping track of votes could be a problem. However, if someone kept on top of a poll from the beginning, and tracked each vote from the start, it could work. There really is no good way to go about it.

3. Doesn't really improve quality for the cost.

Our current system has yet to really lead us astray, and this is because we have strong TLs that cut out the garbage.

In addition, just because you can pass the test to become a registered voter doesn't mean you know diddly about how a certain movelist or type would impact the metagame. Essentially what this tries to do is increase the quality of voters by instituting a test that has more to do with general knowledge than actual relevant battle or metagame experience. There's no way to tell that implementing this more convoluted, exclusive process is improving the quality of our end product.

You're right, there is no way to tell what will happen. However, we need to test it for this reason. People who don't know what the effect of a movepool on the metagame could learn it through participating or the tutoring idea in the other thread.

EDIT: Instead of a process for registering voters, maybe if we found a way to reward new users for demonstrating knowledge of the project(s) without tying it to the ability of participating, we might accomplish our goal without making CAP less accessible. Maybe a CAP tutor program or something, with a sig. banner as a prize.

Heh... read the other new thread =P

 

[DougJustDoug]

I like the general idea of identifying what members of the CAP community "know what they are doing" -- whatever that means. But, I'm not sure this proposal is the way to go about it. I don't have very good organization to my thoughts on this, so I'll just throw them out there, one paragraph at a time, with my main points in bold:

There have been some minor problems with drive-by voting, but I do not see that as an urgent problem. I think very few final results have been overly swayed by uninformed voters. I think there is rampant PERCEPTION by the so-called "experienced" members of this community, that the "noobs are messing up the polls". But, I don't share this opinion.

There are a large number of "experienced" members of this community that are totally uninformed idiots. Just because they have been around for a long time, doesn't mean they know about the metagame. In fact, a great many members in this community NEVER show their face on the CAP server, or any other Shoddy server for that matter. They don't know the first thing about how the metagame is really played. Even the most experienced battlers will admit to being surprised by certain playtesting results on the CAP project. Experience with the CAP forum =/= credible metagame knowledge.

Using terms like "experienced CAP member" is somewhat of an oxymoron, in the eyes of many senior Smogoners.The CAP project has been around for less than one year, and we have been a recognized sub-community (server and subforum) for roughly six months.

For the most part, our creation process protects the project from completely idiotic decisions driven by noob voters. With few exceptions, almost every meaningful poll has a "qualified" slate of choices. The choices are vetted by someone knowledgeable (usually the TL) after hearing general feedback from the community. While the PERFECT choice may not be selected, we almost never make a BAD choice, because bad choices are not even an option. Knowledgeable voting is helpful, but not urgent -- if all options available are "good options".

I don't want a system that appears exclusive or elitist. One of the great things about the CAP project is that it attracts a wide spectrum of participants. I try to recruit people to come to the CAP forum and "join in the fun" (a quote I use frequently in CAP propaganda). It doesn't seem right to invite people to join -- then make them run the gauntlet to prove they deserve a voice. If done correctly, we might be able to make a registration system work. But, if done in a ham-fisted way, it could damage the project more than it helps.

A questionnaire might weed out the newest of the newbs, but it won't tell us who knows what they are doing. The concept of "qualified voting" is being used right now with the Suspect Testing for the Smogon OU tier. The qualifications are actual ladder ratings on the Smogon U server. Essentially, anyone can earn their vote by demonstrating battle skill. I don't think pure battle ratings should be the qualification to vote in the CAP project, but I like the idea of an objective system to qualify people.

Administering a system like this will be a big pain in the ass. It's hard enough to just keep the project moving as it is. Adding an additional layer of registration and registration tracking is a headache we do not need. Some of you may think this process would be easy to do, but it will inevitably have lots of complications. Why do I know this? Because EVERYTHING on this project has complications. Most of you just cast your votes, post your opinions, and battle on the server. But, keeping the show running is a lot more work than you can possibly imagine. Ask any TL what it takes to organize a single CAP project, and they'll tell you. And the TL's have no idea what it takes to run the CAP community as a whole. A registration process would apply to the entire community, therefore will inevitably be a lot harder than it looks.

I don't want to qualify voters for all CAP votes. I want to have a program for identifying "knowledgeable CAP members", and I would like certain votes to be reserved only for "certified" voters. In particular, I would like the Topic Leader to be chosen by established members. Perhaps even the Concept. If we could get a process for revising pokemon, I would like it to be restricted to qualified voters, presumably those that earn the right to vote on revisions, by playing the pokemon on the server. But, even for the votes that I just mentioned, I'm not sure this proposal is the right way to qualify the voters.

 

[bumfacepik]

I don't know how filling out a simple questionare about the past would improve their understanding about the metagame. What if you made it based on how much time you've been playing on doug's server... if that is possible.

 

[Urza]

Our current system has yet to really lead us astray, and this is because we have strong TLs that cut out the garbage.

quoted for truth.

i think it makes more sense to keep it this way. maybe for policy discussion on cap, such as team leader voting (such as it is) and any changes to the process order. but part of what made the idea so brilliant was that it was voted on...keep this idea on the back burner, but for now, let's keep it as it is.

 

[Hyra]

I really have to agree with Doug. As much as I tried to limit drive-by voting in CAP2, I never discounted any votes. I also do not want to deal with reading all these applications. I did enough as a Topic Leader, let me just enjoy being a voter =P.

But yeah, its just too much work for too little reward. Most of these people end up getting banned/infracted anyways.

 

[Mekkah]

Most of these people end up getting banned/infracted anyways.

I think this is an interesting point, because it's those people I would want to weed out the most with such a test. For everyone else, it seems largely too much effort, and brings all the other problems Doug listed.

 

[Empoleon Guru]

I have a few questions.
How will the people be chosen?
If they past a test once, will they have to do another one before the next CAP starts?
What's wrong with the CAP as it is now?

 

[tennisace]

I have a few questions.
How will the people be chosen?
If they past a test once, will they have to do another one before the next CAP starts?
What's wrong with the CAP as it is now?

1. What people are you talking about? I can't answer that one.

2. No, I said that clearly in the OP.

3. The problem is in clicky polls in particular, people with little or no posts in CaP and all over Smogon are voting. What this seems to me is that people who don't contribute to the project are drive-by voting for sometimes random options in polls, skewing results. This could be remidied by a process like this, or by a tutoring program, which I came up with in my other thread.

 

[jagged_angel]

There have been some minor problems with drive-by voting, but I do not see that as an urgent problem. I think very few final results have been overly swayed by uninformed voters. I think there is rampant PERCEPTION by the so-called "experienced" members of this community, that the "noobs are messing up the polls". But, I don't share this opinion.

Also quoted for truth.

If the so called "experienced" members of this community are still bitter about the results of previous polls they need to suck it up and deal with it.

This idea of registered voting will seriously impact outside perception of CAP if it is implemented - more so than anyone has currently suggested.
People will see this as elitist and unfriendly, a long way from the 'join in the fun' message that will keep the project alive by attracting new members.

If you want a large community you have to accept that some people will stop by to vote on the polls and maybe post occasionally. They don't have time and Won't make time to prove their right to vote.

One way to mitigate the perceived problem of drive by voting is by Bolded voting in polls. It forces people to post so they have to put at least some thought into the poll in hand. It also makes it easier to identify voters and gives them more of a chance to provide reasons for voting. I understand the practical problems that arise with bolded voting but it may be a neccessary evil.

 

[tennisace]

Also quoted for truth.

If the so called "experienced" members of this community are still bitter about the results of previous polls they need to suck it up and deal with it.

This idea of registered voting will seriously impact outside perception of CAP if it is implemented - more so than anyone has currently suggested.
People will see this as elitist and unfriendly, a long way from the 'join in the fun' message that will keep the project alive by attracting new members.

If you want a large community you have to accept that some people will stop by to vote on the polls and maybe post occasionally. They don't have time and Won't make time to prove their right to vote.

One way to mitigate the perceived problem of drive by voting is by Bolded voting in polls. It forces people to post so they have to put at least some thought into the poll in hand. It also makes it easier to identify voters and gives them more of a chance to provide reasons for voting. I understand the practical problems that arise with bolded voting but it may be a neccessary evil.

I'd respond to this fully if this idea was still on the table, but it was obviously shot down a few posts up and even I denounced it.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

This proposal will not be implemented.