[LVS] Council Pre-meeting Agenda (October 21st 2017)

[Spectatre]

ABP's hosting the next meeting in two weeks!

Link to previous notes is here: https://zedwork.co.uk/wiki/Zedling_Council_Meeting_2017-10-07

Discuss topics, apologise for your absence, share your secrets below.

[Spectatre]

As decided in the previous meeting, we're changing up the way we handle nominations for council membership. This involves changing some regulations to reflect this. Please read the notes on the previous meeting to find out more about the new system!

Below are my proposed changes to the wording, to be voted on at the next meeting. NB: The vote is just to confirm the new wording of the regulations, not the substance of how they are being changed. The previous meeting decided how the system was going to change, this vote is just to rubberstamp how that change is going to be written into the regulations.

***NB: LATEST WORDING ON REGULATIONS CAN BE FOUND IN ABP's POST - CLICK HERE **

I suggest amending regs 5, 17 and 20, and adding a new reg (which would be 30, though the formatting on the reg page has gone wibbly).
Proposed changes as below, my comments in italics

Current reg, with proposed removal indicated by slash
5 - Council Members must be nominated and endorsed by at least 2 council members, and hold the majority vote of at least 3 in a meeting to be officially voted in as a council member.
Removing the 'and endorsed by', as in the new system players require two private nominations instead of a public nomination being seconded/endorsed
20/10 UPDATE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:
Suggested update to the regulation:
5 - Council members must be nominated by at least 2 council members, and hold at least three votes to be elected onto the council. The member with the highest votes total wins the candicacy.
Removing 'and endorsed by', removing three-vote majority (as it clashed with tiebreak rules)

Current reg, with proposed removal indicated by slash
20 - When electing a new member, should voting result in a tie: First, the member present has priority. If both are present the player with the most hours wins. If even hours are the same the council must find an additional way to resolve ties or pass on the election.
As presence is required in order to gain permission to be voted on, player presence as a tiebreak becomes obsolete

Current reg, with proposed removal indicated by slash and addition indicated by underline
17 - Voting, after nominations, Both nominations and voting to elect a new council member is to be done via private message (/msg) to the host of the meeting. This aims to prevent peer pressure and encourage a more honest vote.
Clarifying both nominations/voting is now private

Proposed regulation to be added:
30 - When a host has received at least two nominations for a player to join the council, they must gain that player's permission via private message (/msg), prior to naming them at the voting stage. If the player declines, or is not present at the time of the meeting to give permission, their nomination is not to be included in the voting stage.
Just explaining the gaining player permission following nominations, prior to voting

[Forseth]

Well.. for starters... Reg 20 has never been used as far as I know. If there ever is a tie, no new council members are picked. (For good reason, what in the world does the number of hours on the server has to do on who has priority as a council member? As long as they are Zedling or higher, it shouldn't matter. If there is a tie, a tie it is, try again next time.)

Also, If you intend to write regulations with the purpose of referencing a nominations system, try to add that to the regulation.
In other words, If you want the nominations to be in secret, add that to the reg. If you don't add it, do reference the acting nomination rule in the regulation.
Ex:
"Council Members must be secretly nominated by at least 2 council members, and hold the majority vote of at least 3 in a meeting to be officially voted in as a council member"
or
"Council Members must be nominated (using the active nomination system) by at least 2 council members, and hold the majority vote of at least 3 in a meeting to be officially voted in as a council member"

The second one is easier, as it only refers to another rule. If that rule changes, the reg doesn't.

Also, great work on the notes Spectatre

[SwayLight]

Well.. for starters... Reg 20 has never been used as far as I know. If there ever is a tie, no new council members are picked. (For good reason, what in the world does the number of hours on the server has to do on who has priority as a council member? As long as they are Zedling or higher, it shouldn't matter. If there is a tie, a tie it is, try again next time.)

Also, If you intend to write regulations with the purpose of referencing a nominations system, try to add that to the regulation.
In other words, If you want the nominations to be in secret, add that to the reg. If you don't add it, do reference the acting nomination rule in the regulation.
Ex:
"Council Members must be secretly nominated by at least 2 council members, and hold the majority vote of at least 3 in a meeting to be officially voted in as a council member"
or
"Council Members must be nominated (using the active nomination system) by at least 2 council members, and hold the majority vote of at least 3 in a meeting to be officially voted in as a council member"

The second one is easier, as it only refers to another rule. If that rule changes, the reg doesn't.

Also, great work on the notes Spectatre

Reg 20 has been used several times previously Seth.

[Forseth]

Really? well not when I was present I guess.

Well in that case I would argue that we remove it. It fills no function other than to create a rift between the players. If an event happens where the vote is a tie.. let it be a tie. There is no need to fill a empty slot every other week and if the participants really want to join, they can appear on the next meeting as well. And until that meeting, they have another chance to prove themselves to the council member, possibly getting more votes next time.
The only thing that this regulation does, is to say that your time on zedwork equals your contribution as a member of the community, which isn't true.

[Spectatre]

Regulation 5 states that a player needs a three-vote majority to be voted in.

Currently, tiebreaks are the exception to that - reg 20 explains how to vote a player in in the event of a tie, even as the fact of a tie indicates the lack of a three-vote majority.

Should tiebreaks be the exception to the three-vote majority requirement, or not?

[ACERPROSPY]

I can't make this meeting either. Scheduled to speak at a panel that weekend.

[Forseth]

No, in the event that there ain't no majority in votes (three-vote Majority as you said), I don't think there should be a tie breaker. At least not one based on hours played.

[ABParadigm]

I think there should be a tie breaker, as it is entirely possible that at the following meeting there is the same situation, or worse yet, those zedlings are discouraged and BOTH do not return to try to get nominated at a further meeting.

Bearing that in mind, I agree that an hours-based tiebreaker is unfair, as it is entirely possible an older player of 500 hours may get the same amount of nominations to a newer player of 50, which does have a lot of bias to "veteran" players.

I believe there should be some other method, such as Guardian/Zriend
/Zesty/Mayor/Co-Mayor getting more points in a vote, if need be. They would be counted as a normal vote unless it is necessary to tie-break.

**Note that this method may only be used in the event of a tie, and the second part of the current regulation being "must find another tie-break method" remain the same.

**Note that the specific server titles I suggested are not my final suggestion; I was just naming possible +1 vote enhancers.

[Memery]

[EDIT] I have re-written this point later in the post which better explains my points