forums.marpirc.net

There's been quite a venimous protest on the eligibility of voting here at MARP. Currently, you have to submit a minimum of 1% of recordings in order to vote, as well as signal that you've been active over the last two months. Most of the protest is that it's too strict, if I've observed it right.

Here's what I'm thinking: (this is more of a discussion post until we figure out a good compromise and all that)

1. (You must submit 10 recordings OR score 600 leaderboard points) AND make 40 posts to the board.
OR
2. (You must submit 20 recordings OR score 1200 leaderboard points) AND make 20 posts to the board.
OR
3. You must submit 30 recordings or score 1800 leaderboard points

Recordings count through either regulation or tournaments.

BUT YOU MUST MAINTAIN ACTIVITY BY...
1. Submitting 4 recordings in the previous year.
OR
2. Submit 10 posts to the board in the previous year.

Again, recordings count through either regulation or tournaments.

But there's got to be some way to signal that you're active here...

What do yall think?

A combo of 1 and 2 above sound best to me.

ie. eligible if 10 recordings(no LB points mention) and 20 forum posts.

active of at least 1 score submission in the past year and at least 10 forum posts in the past year to be eligible for that election.

FYI, sorry I didn't vote in this election. I was eligible...but largely didn't vote cuz

1) didn't know half the names. It would have helped to have their real name and their MARP forum name.

2) an explanation of exactly what each position is etc.

3) actually seen that particular person active within the forums in the past several months or submitting scores etc.

you can't get to know someone that is rarely posting to the forums etc.

Even though I didn't vote, I likely would have voted the same way the results turned out...including editor confidence votes.

I personally don't want anyone to have to post to the forum or fight for leaderboard points in order to be eligible to vote. If this comes to a poll, please include an option that does not require either of these. (As a matter of fact I think the option that all MARP members are allowed to vote in the election should be included).

I do feel that a member's first submitted recording should indicate a sufficiently long presence (maybe six months), and their most recent submission should show that they have been active in the last year/six months/whatever. Beyond that, however I do not favor a required minimum number of submissions and would probably vote for the option that has the smallest such number.

Oops... I did forget that you need to exist at MARP for at least six months. Thanks, Weehawk.

Ill play the other side of the coin.

I didn't vote even though I was eligible either. I don't feel Ive earned that yet. I still feel new here. I personally think ( to the dismay of some) that the rules should be strict. Not just any joe should be able to cast a vote. I know the people running feel the elections are important and exciting. I know I would. Surely only those who know them and their integrity best should be allowed to make those decisions. And those people are the long terme vets of MARP.

The rules should stay as strict as they are or even sticter if you ask me. Its only my opinion. The elections should be sacred and only voted on by the wise old elders, Not open to those who may water it down oe turn the tide with a careless vote. The best man should win.

Dax wrote:The elections should be sacred and only voted on by the wise old elders,

Age has nothing to do with wisdom.

Not open to those who may water it down oe turn the tide with a careless vote.

Somebody who's been at MARP for 5 years could be a retard and submit a careless vote. Somebody who's been here for a month could be smart and see who's getting the job done and vote accordingly.

The best man should win.

The only way to guarantee that would be if there was a way to let only smart people vote.

Buttermaker wrote:

Not open to those who may water it down oe turn the tide with a careless vote.

Somebody who's been at MARP for 5 years could be a retard and submit a careless vote. Somebody who's been here for a month could be smart and see who's getting the job done and vote accordingly.

The problem is that no matter how smart people are they don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and as I see it there was placed a few careless votes in this election from people who don't know at all who's doing what behind the scenes. Way to many no votes on way to many editors who have all done a great job the past year.

absolutely true frankie, it's silly that you were voted out by confidence when you've done the most edits and rule changes from baseball and golf games and split checking. This makes no freaking sense what so ever, to see the most active and valuable editor be voted out... ridiculous.

Chad wrote: This makes no freaking sense what so ever, to see the most active and valuable editor be voted out... ridiculous.

Yeah, I was dumbfounded too.

Chad wrote:absolutely true frankie, it's silly that you were voted out by confidence when you've done the most edits and rule changes from baseball and golf games and split checking. This makes no freaking sense what so ever, to see the most active and valuable editor be voted out... ridiculous.

Personally, I would say a mere 5 votes isn't enough to vote someone "out" of anything. I hope he gets reinstated as an editor. Given MARP has rules that demand 2/3rds to ban a technique or pass special rules for a game it seems to REMOVE someone should require 2/3rds also, not just 50%.

Ok, he got 2 out of 5 right? If that was 3 out of 6 he would still be an editor if I had voted right? That doesn't seem like a good enough representation. Now I feel bad that I didn't vote. I could have at least still sent confidence votes for the editors.

I know if I had voted, Frankie, QRS, BBH, and a couple others on that list would have gotten my confidence cuz I saw the work they did in confirmations, special rule discussions and polls and editing etc.

However, what does 2 out of 5 mean? Does it mean 3 actually voted against Frankie, or does it mean those other 3 just simply didn't even a confidence vote to Frankie? I think that difference is very important. The absence of a vote doesn't mean you are for removing that person.

I'm also confused why others are out of 6 votes, when Frankie's is only out of 5.

Frankie wrote:The problem is that no matter how smart people are they don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and as I see it there was placed a few careless votes in this election from people who don't know at all who's doing what behind the scenes.

Care to enlighten us about what's going on "behind the scenes"?

LN2 wrote:I saw the work they did in confirmations,

Confirmations? Zlk for Editor!

special rule discussions

Like this one, that one and this one for example?

Does it mean 3 actually voted against Frankie

yes

I'm also confused why others are out of 6 votes, when Frankie's is only out of 5.

You are easily confused.

LN2 wrote:I'm also confused why others are out of 6 votes, when Frankie's is only out of 5.

Frankie didn't vote for himself.

mahlemiut wrote:Frankie didn't vote for himself.

Editors vote in the editor vote of confidence?

Just on themselves or each other as well?

That would make the results even more bewildering.

Buttermaker wrote:

Dax wrote:The elections should be sacred and only voted on by the wise old elders,

Age has nothing to do with wisdom.

Referring to time spent at at marp, not age of elector.

Buttermaker wrote:

Dax wrote:Not open to those who may water it down or turn the tide with a careless vote.

Somebody who's been at MARP for 5 years could be a retard and submit a careless vote. Somebody who's been here for a month could be smart and see who's getting the job done and vote accordingly.

This statement is a stretch. Someone who's been here 5 years will have had the time and experience of seeing whos getting things done and whos opinions and recomendations make the most sense. While someone whos been here only 30 days hasn't had the time to gain enough consistant data to cast a solid vote. They need to witness whos working the hardest over the long haul, not just for one 30 day block of time. Thats nonsense.

Time spent here learning whos who, How things are done, Acceptable practices, Whos making good decisions, Charisma and knowledge of editors, and whos consistantly active, WILL make a smarter wiser voter in the long run.

Bit too strict proposals imo.
How about:

-Must exist at Marp atleast 6 months

-Have submitted 10 recordings
OR
-Have submitted 5 recordings and 5 forum posts


Activity:

Last year...
Have submitted 3 recordings
OR
Have submitted 1 recording and 10 forum posts
---------

Have two other rule issues too:

1) 2/3 rule should be dropped, atleast when it comes to voting about how certain game is played.
It does not work on all cases, like some tricks voting.
I think it was meant originally to discourage changing marp GENERAL rules too easily. Nevertheless when talking about certain game tricks if allowed or not, that is not really changing general rules...and simple majority vote should be in order.

Anyway this kind of 2/3 rule is artificial and not in place with some cases.
also it is not clear which side needs 2/3, as happened before...Is the "default" any trick allowed or no trick allowed.

-If we are talking/voting about how one game should be played, one side should not win with 34% of votes.

2) There should allways be atleast 2 days pre-poll discussion. Unless poll is categorized trivial or funny or "fluff" etc.

-This is because(insert own argument here), you see.

Thanks,

TJT