Pilot Testing: New Voting Procedure

Lord Nwahs

Lord Nwahs

Not the Speaker
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Olvern
Discord
lordnwahs
In light of some comments made after a certain purge of RA members... event, I thought of some changes that can be made to our voting procedure, legislative or non-legislative. I think that it will make votes much clearer in general, but feel free to comment.

proposed vote thread template:
spk-seal.png
As proposed by (bill/motion proposer), and debated HERE.

Debate should be conducted in that thread. This thread is for voting only, with the execption of providing voting rationale.

You may vote in this thread in this format. Providing voting rationale is completely optional, but highly encouraged. Votes outside this format will be adopted via a case-by-case basis, at the descretion of the speaker:

Code: 
[b]Vote:[/b] < Aye | Nay | Abstain>
[b]Voting Rationale (optional):[/b] [spoiler][/spoiler]
The bill/motion requires (condition) for it to pass.

The vote will remain open for (3-7) days, and will end at (time=(timestamp)) in your time zone (NOTE: if you are in an area affected by daylight savings time, you may need to check a box in your forum settings to see the correct time here).

The Bill/Motion at vote:

Bill Title:
-words-
-words-
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I am going to pilot test this for the two upcoming votes as well, so do feel free to comment on this thread to make your grievances known.
 
I don't really like it. But I guess I am a bit "meh".

Looking at the voting thread, it looks like some people don't get what the spoiler part was for.... and that they still add the optional part without filling it out. I probably just being fussy though.
 
I strongly object to this change.

First of all, the decision to restrict votes to aye, nay, and abstain without qualifiers was to ensure that debating is not carried over into the voting thread and that undue influence is not exerted. Providing a place for people to explicitly give their reasoning directly counteracts this, and will absolutely lead to "BECAUSE THIS BILL SUCKS" in giant bold text.

Second of all, it makes the format WAY more complicated for people who simply want to cast their vote.

I will be continuing to vote a simple aye, nay, or abstain. I will not be using this template, and I encourage others to boycott it as well. I very strongly urge the speaker to revert this change.
 
I think debate should be restricted to the debate thread. Votes should be cast with no attempt to influence other voters. If someone wants people to know why they voted a certain way, they should post in the debate thread, and many do. This format actually discourages that.
 
SillyString:
I strongly object to this change.

First of all, the decision to restrict votes to aye, nay, and abstain without qualifiers was to ensure that debating is not carried over into the voting thread and that undue influence is not exerted. Providing a place for people to explicitly give their reasoning directly counteracts this, and will absolutely lead to "BECAUSE THIS BILL SUCKS" in giant bold text.

Second of all, it makes the format WAY more complicated for people who simply want to cast their vote.

I will be continuing to vote a simple aye, nay, or abstain. I will not be using this template, and I encourage others to boycott it as well. I very strongly urge the speaker to revert this change.
Click to expand...

I don't much like the change either. But I think calling for a boycott is a bit strong at this point. :fish:
 
I really, really do not like the idea. I think vote threads are for voting and the place for debating, influencing others and explaining how you voted is in the debate thread.

Begin to allow debate in the voting thread and soon it will get out of hand, leading to a future speaker moving back to a simple "aye" "nay" "abstain" only.

Sorry, but there are just too many idiots in the RA to expect otherwise.
 
I think it is clear that the voting rationale idea is highly unpopular (at least amongst those that matter), and so is the voting form in general. As such it will not be adopted for further bills.

Do not expect me to revert back to the old way immediately. I'm thinking of another possible change that could end the "but it's clear that my vote is for this or that" kind of comments, because I am a dictatorial ass nice nice speaker guy.
 
I agree that voting rationale is better left to debate, and shouldn't be included with a ballot. Buuut.. I think an optional exit poll after the election concludes could be interesting. A sample poll:

Position/Winner

Why did you vote for this candidate?

1. I believe their stated policies are sound, and they could be an asset to the region.
2. They are a member of the Oligarchy.**
3. They are dedicated to the Oligarchy's downfall.**
4. They are a member of the Unholy Trio.**
5. Anyone but the Unholy Trio.**
6. Other - feel free to post another reason for your voting preference. Keep it brief and respectful. Off-topic and snarky posts will be split off into a closed thread.

Disclaimer: These poll options are intended for satirical purposes only. Any resemblance/correlation to actual TNP voting behavior is purely coincidental. :P
 
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions/hateful comments!

In the end, I decided against adding voting rationale to the voting process. It was kind of a silly idea, but I guess there was no harm testing it out.

Onto a more serious issue on vote validity, I've made the following amendments to the voting template:

proposed vote thread template:
spk-seal.png
As proposed by (bill/motion proposer), and debated HERE.

Debate should be conducted in that thread. This thread is for voting only.

You may vote in this thread by posting "aye" "nay" or "abstain" in black, normal sized text with only the capitalisation of the first letter, or the use of a period/full stop next to the vote allowed. All other votes on this thread will not be counted towards voting for any of the three options, or be counted for quorum purposes, but will be counted towards being a vote in a member's voting record. Votes cast by any other means than a post in this thread will not be counted. A simple majority is needed to pass.

The vote will remain open for (3-7) days, and will end at (time=(timestamp)) in your time zone (NOTE: if you are in an area affected by daylight savings time, you may need to check a box in your forum settings to see the correct time here).

The Bill/Motion at vote:

Bill Title:
-words-
-words-
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Comments?
 
So, AYE won't work cause its all capitalized?

Aye. Nay. Abstain. Aye Nay Abstain aye nay abstain aye. nay. abstain. Is allowed?

Idk. It does seem like the move of a dictitorial ass really nice nice speaker guy! As you say. You are speaker so what you say goes. I dont think I would personally be that harsh though. As long as there was no embellishments like color changes bolding ittalics underline or !!! Exclaimation points, ect. I'd accept it. Including if someone wanted to vote in all caps AYE NAY ABSTAIN with or without the .(period) I think it would be okay. I just think the
with only the capitalisation of the first letter, or the use of a period/full stop next to the vote allowed.
Click to expand...
part is probably unnessicary.
 
Tough luck, Paulie.

If you want your votes to be taken seriously, then just stick to the rules.
 
mcmasterdonia:
The stuff about capitalisation and stating that a full stop can be used seems unnecessary and OTT.
Click to expand...
The whole premise of doing this is to avoid the situation where people argue with me about limits. I think explicitly clear boundaries are better than unclear ones.
 
Well, I just mean - if I accidentally put my vote as aYe
You would need to disqualify that vote.. That seems over the top to me :P
 
mcmasterdonia:
Well, I just mean - if I accidentally put my vote as aYe
You would need to disqualify that vote.. That seems over the top to me :P
Click to expand...
:/

I guess I might consider TGing people to change their votes in that case?
 
I'm with SillyString. We must respect people's right to privacy of thought and save the debates for the debate thread!
 
Syrixia:
I'm with SillyString. We must respect people's right to privacy of thought and save the debates for the debate thread!
Click to expand...
lol I'm not even implementing that anymore.

Did you see my recent changes? If so, any comments?
 
mcmasterdonia:
Well, I just mean - if I accidentally put my vote as aYe
You would need to disqualify that vote.. That seems over the top to me :P
Click to expand...
When people are unable to follow guidelines, guidelines get more and more restrictive.

(Though I do support PMing people whenever you invalidate a vote, Nwahs - makes sure they have a chance to fix it).
 
SillyString:
mcmasterdonia:
Well, I just mean - if I accidentally put my vote as aYe
You would need to disqualify that vote.. That seems over the top to me :P
Click to expand...
When people are unable to follow guidelines, guidelines get more and more restrictive.

(Though I do support PMing people whenever you invalidate a vote, Nwahs - makes sure they have a chance to fix it).
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Feel free to continue giving comments. I'm going to permanently stick to this format until there's a good reason otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top