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

[ABParadigm]

That is an easy alternative Mem, simply allowing both onto the council. That being said, what if the chairs only allow one member to be elected? I see your point, but suggest taking this tie-break method not just as a contingency but a contingency of a contingency, and so on.

[Memery]

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

[ABParadigm]

Aye Mem, should have been more specific about that there. Sorry about that.

[SneakySkeleton]

More of an announcement than a topic.

Council Regs 13 and 29 have been changed, or tidied up. (They are the same thing)

Reg 13 used to read: "Council warp Mayoral voting system (See regulation 29)", due to a formatting issue. This has since been changed and tidied up.
Reg 13 now reads: "Council warp Mayoral voting system - full detail available on the Warp Mayor Page".
Regulation 29 has been removed, as it is now Regulation 13. https://zedwork.co.uk/wiki/Zedling_Council

This regulation has been moved to a more appropriate page, as its not directly affecting the council itself, more warp mayors. If anyone has issues with this, we can talk about it quickly next meeting!

[Forseth]

I thought we had a rule that said that there could only be one new member on each meeting?

Either way, I'm not against tiebreakers, I'm just against the tie breaker that is based on hours played. As AB said above, there could be other tiebreakers, but I honestly think that unless the council is bleeding members (have few, losing them), there is no need to choose a new member based on a tie.

[Spectatre]

Regulation 4 states that only one council member can be elected per meeting. We're currently at 19/20 members.
--
If reg 5 was reworded to say that a player needs at least three votes, instead of needing a three-vote majority, it would remove the contradiction between it and reg 20 (which refers to tiebreaks)
--
I can find five occasions where the notes record a tiebreaker for a council member election. One was decided by player presence, one was decided by hours played, and the earliest three were decided by a game of Missile Wars.

Throwing out potential options for a tiebreaker:
A) Hours Played, coin flip, or some other similarly arbitrary metric
B) If one person got more nominations at the first stage (them being private, this is a possibility)
C) ABP's suggestion, host declaring a winner based on which candidate gained more votes from guardian/zriend, etc.
D) One person having a (private) 'tiebreak' vote, such as a Guardian, or the Host
E) Zesty game
F) Number of attendances in previous 5 meetings (per Mem's suggestion below)
G) None of the above

[Memery]

Clarifying once again: I never said that BOTH of the tiebreak candidates should be added to the council in the same meeting!

I explained it poorly so I will try again:

Susan and Mike both receive 2 endorsements and 3 votes each, resulting in a tie break. OH NO!

Each player does !hoursplayed. Susan has 20 hours and Mike has 749.

Mike wins the tie break in this instance, but wait! Because Susan is such a great candidate, it is very obvious that she will simply be elected in the following meeting.

My point being: Tie-Break doesn't really mean anything, it only prevents someone being elected for 1 meeting and therefore, in my opinion, is a mute point.

Of course this raises the issue of the tiebreak filling up the last space in the council, so I suppose something does have to be done.

Having the tiebreak situation is annoying, because it is very hard to distinguish between 2 perfectly appropriate candidates. A branch of the !hoursplayed tie break could simply be: How many council meetings have the players attended/ taken part in over the last 5 meetings? I feel like if attendance is formally recorded weekly then this will settle almost every tie, and if that is equal, go to !hoursplayed as it is a simple and un-bias way of deciding, in my opinion.

Having said that, I hope my example shows that most of the time a tie-break scenario wont really cause much, if any, of an issue, my point is sort of all over the place I realise, so I dunno, take from it whatever you fancy....

[Spectatre]

A branch of the !hoursplayed tie break could simply be: How many council meetings have the players attended/ taken part in over the last 5 meetings? I feel like if attendance is formally recorded weekly then this will settle almost every tie, and if that is equal, go to !hoursplayed as it is a simple and un-bias way of deciding, in my opinion.

Going to add this as an option in me post up above; meeting attendance seems to be less arbitrary than hoursplayed. Given how rare tiebreakers have been it seems unlikely to have a situation where two/more players will have equal votes, and equal attendance.

[ABParadigm]

I agree with Mem's suggestion (option F) - recording guests' attendance and reviewing their previous meeting attendances is much less arbitrary. Indeed it holds no bias as well as indicates "how much" they want to be on the council. I certainly can agree to this method.

[Forseth]

Having attendance for tiebreaker is better than hours played. At least it's based on the players wish to be a part of the council