Emergency SH Approval System, everyone please read

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
Emergency SH Approval System, everyone please read

This is for our current predicament. For those that do not know, we have one active full official SH with all SH rights and duties: Madius. He can only do so much.

We have three ASH's that are in the final phase, either almost completed or finished and took the final test.

This idea, and it's only an idea in it's budding stages, which I fully expect to be fine tuned and changed, is a way to get an ASH to an SH in an emergency situation like we are currently in. Look it over, give opinions/feedback. Please discuss.

The following is copy/pasted from a PM:

As for the picking at least one or two more SH's, (I prefer odd numbers, so 2 + Maddy would be 3.) I think that's going to come down to the test, Maddy's suggestion based upon being an SH already. But not a vote. It's a suggestion, words of wisdom, whatever you want to call it, heh. Then the other ASH's decide. Not the whole site. Though maybe doing a public vote, tallied up, counted as one vote. Those that vote there, can't vote in the ASH only vote.

So, say LadyK finishes up her testing, takes test 3.
--1. Maddy reads it, gives his opinion on the results
--2. ASH's (you, me, Chord, Kirsten, Bast, Stome, and Ali) vote within a set time period. Use it or lose it. Emails get sent out automatically as is and it takes little time to log in and vote.
--3. The non-ASH's vote. ASH's who vote here forfeit their vote on the ASH vote or their votes are ignored (here only). No weighting the votes

We tally up the non-ASH votes to see which direction they voted in. If the total equals yes, then it counts as one "yes" vote on the ASH vote. If the total is "no" then it's one vote on the ASH vote.

Then we tally up the totals on the ASH vote and include the "1" public poll vote. Right now, that would be a total of 8 votes. If it's a tie, then Maddy's SH vote will break the tie. We have a second SH. Then we can repeat for SH 3 if need be. If not, we can knock it down to Maddy + ? to decide on the third person to complete their ASH training.

It's not like they are running for office, it's not a popularity vote. It keeps the public involved, but doesn't make it an overwhelming public thing. And the folks who do get the system a little more in depth get an equal opportunity to get our 2nd SH up and going.

Once we have our 2-3, then we can go back to more normal routines where it becomes solely the SH's who decide. Call this simply an emergency action response (a.k.a. Oh shit!) laughs

If worried between ASH 1's and ASH 2's knowledge base. Then can set it up where on the ASH vote, ASH 1's count as 1 vote and ASH 2's count as 2 votes. Otherwise, I have no clue how to make getting an SH more impartial and fair.

There you have it. To the community in general, and to the A/SH's in particular, thoughts? Opinions?

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
My thoughts

Are very few on this because I really like the idea as it's presented.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Maddy and I had kicked around

Maddy and I had kicked around something simular - "Starvation Mode". Lemme do some squinting at the technological limits here when it comes to the player-level votes. We're going to have to account for dead / non active players when we judge if they're a go ahead or not - so let me muse on that to make sure there's not a tech issue here. Otherwise i'm liking it.

I would like a "Dead Mode" option as well - when the site is truly dead, no sh's, no ash's, aka coming back from the great beyond, we should allow the first person to complete with player approval - to go ahead into SH. After that of course, we go back up to Starvation Mode as described, then once we hit the minimum there - we go back to "Normal" mode. ;)

Maelstrom
Maelstrom's picture.
Last online
3 years 8 months ago
Unless...

...a player has been an A/SH in the past or is currently going through testing, they have no idea whether or not someone is qualified to become a full SH. All they really know is whether or not they enjoyed a particular session they were in and if seemed to move along and flow pretty well or not. Although that's part of being a good SH, making sure the players have fun and keeping everything moving, it's not the defining factor in being one. There are a lot of aspects to being qualified as a full SH. Those who've never done it can't appreciate how truly difficult it can sometimes be, cause in spite of the extensive wiki, not every possibility can be accounted for, regarding both player centric issues as well as the character-based ones.

As far as the 'Special Session' mode, or 'Emergency Approval' mode or 'Starvation Mode' or whatever you want to call it, it presupposes A/SH candidates are actively pursuing their SH and there is an existent SH already present on site. I agree that 'Normal' mode should require at least 3 full SHs, so two additionals need to be created via the emergency mode. I see no reason to include a public vote about deciding which ASH can become a full SH. As previously stated, unless a player has been one before, there is no real knowledge about what qualifies an A/SH to be an SH. It would be a popularity vote and nothing more. The normal players don't decide who becomes an SH when operating in 'normal' mode, so I don't see why they would be included for an emergency mode if there is an active A/SH community. Now, having only 2 or 3 A/SHs working towards their full SH would kind of pose a problem, so that kind of scenario may need to be considered though it has no direct bearing on the current situation.

Stome and Ali are not likely going to be back any time soon either. I'm not sure that excluding Maddy from a vote is the right way to go or even why it would be done. The -only- reason I can think of is if there was a tie and he needed to break it. With that now said, I suppose that could be a good enough reason. His single vote would not be enough to decide anything -unless- there was a tie, so it's just as easy to exclude him from a vote for an 'emergency' mode.

I do not know if A/SHs have access to all test results or if that is only full SHs. A/SHs are the logical choice to decide who becomes an SH, in the absence of other SHs. To do that, they will need access to all test results if they do not already have it. it is the only way to make a fair and informed decision. I also think it is good practice for A/SHs to be able to review another A/SH in this kind of scenario. It can perhaps give them insight into their own deficiencies or strengths and give them an opportunity to offer advice for improvement or to improve themselves. I don't think such a vote should be straight yes/no though to get the 'A' dropped. It should be more of an essay. Why should they get full SH or why should they not? What part of their testing is weak? What part is strong? Explain the answer instead of just voting for or against. Becoming an SH is not something to take lightly, so you don't give it to someone just because you -think- they'll be good at it. That's the reason for the multiple tests; to -prove- they can do it. There's more to it than just the tests though. They are the people that directly interact with all of the players and essentially act as the game's representatives. And they deserve to know and understand -why- they did or didn't make full SH.

I had no intention of typing all this crap. lol
Essentially, A/SHs deciding an additional 2 SHs from A/SHs qualified to be reviewed. Those under consideration do not vote. All A/SHs have access to other A/SH test results in order to make a fair and informed decision. Decisions explained, not just voted Yay/Nay. Maddy can offer a recommendation, but is not required to do so if he thinks it will influence the decision. In case of a tie, he does however break the tie. No need for a 'public' vote. Same process to get a 3rd SH, with the newly-promoted 2nd SH providing a full decision and vote and Maddy still breaking a tie. After #3 is chosen, back to normal decision procedure, whatever that is.

And all of this would still be tremendously easier with a 'private' forum system for the A/SH community. And eliminate some of the IMs and PMs being traded back and forth, some of the he said she said accusations, and generally miscommunicated info and intent that tends to cause problems.

I dunno about a 'dead mode'. Maybe.

I don't think I actually contributed anything with this post. lol
But, there it is anyway.

~deej

/// Addendum ///
This also brings up a related point...
Should an SH become an SH by simple majority vote? We're in a position to redefine how much weight a vote carries. How we decide to choose an SH from this point onward will also help define other votes. Is it to be simple majority? 75%? Unanimous? It may not seem that important, but these kinds of decisions matter down the road.

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
Reply

I included the public vote in case their was a case of say only 3 ASHs and one did the final test (obviously) they don't get say in it. Which leaves just 2 ASH's. I figured if population was that low, then a public vote would almost be needed.

I excluded the SH for reasons like what is current. Maddy is married to Bast. Okay, so what if it wasn't Maddy and Bast. Well there's Chord and Kirsten, Tolex and Jimmy, Ali and Stome....see where I'm going with this. Lots of couples. I wanted to take away the possibility of someone crying foul due to favoritism perforce of OOC relationship.

Note after starvation mode, the Public no longer enters it. And even in starvation mode, the sum total of the public only accounts to a single vote. I was trying to account for that lack of knowledge, but not totally de-powering them in times of need.

Also your addendum is a good point. See, that's the kind of information I needed to be pointed out. Thank you.

grins evilly So now that you've pointed out the flaws, gimme answers. You said 75% (possibly random) but considering in the other thread you said 80%, I suspect not so random. Plus I am unsure of the current system if the 4 SH's had to have majority or unanimous. Personally I prefer %. It is one less change when it goes to "Normal" mode. Not to mention I think of the future and we have 20 SH's and trying to get all 20 to be unanimous at anything would be a feat in futility. laughs

Plus you feel cutting out the non ASH part. I can go that way too. Partially I was thinking of folk like you who have no desire to be an A/SH but do know the system pretty damned well.

ChordOrgan
ChordOrgan's picture.
Last online
2 years 7 months ago
My two cents

I think this looks great.

Regarding non A/SHs counting as a vote, I do think it would be good for a really dire situation where there's a tiny amount of ASHs. AND, the best part is that as the number of A/SH voters increase, the need AND relative power of the non A/SH vote decreases. In our current situation it would have to be a 3-3 split (or 4-4 if Ali and Stome reappear soon) for the non A/SH vote to be deciding, in which case things were clearly very close. However, I can see where Mael's coming from with the knowledge gap, and so I present an alternative which has its own pros and cons:

A potential alternative would be switching the roles of the sole SH (in this case Madius) and the non-A/SH voters. Let the SH vote along with the ASHs and in the case of a tie it'll be the non A/SH players that vote to break it. This solves the issue of the (theoretically) most informed person being left out of the vote and makes it so the (theoretically) least informed only come in to break a tie. . . BUT there is the issue Boblet raised about favoritism, particularly with couples which is obviously relevant. Still, I would be curious to hear others' thoughts on this alternative.

EDIT: Oh and the other bit I'm feeling unsure about is whether ASH1 votes should be equal to ASH2 votes or not. It's a pretty simple matter to get 40hxp and take the first test. Still, 2 votes to 1. . . I dunno. Heh, if no one thinks it's too goofy or too complex I would kinda suggest 1.5 to 1, but maybe that's just me being indecisive.

LadyKirsten
LadyKirsten's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
3 hours 39 min ago
to add...

I would say that A/SH level one, unless they've actually run a session should get counted as a normal player. Everyone can pass that test. It doesn't mean that you know what it's like to be at the helm yet. So until you run a session (or have run one before and are re-earning your ash) you would be counted as a normal player. Obviously this method would include people like Tanya, and Boblet as ASH's getting a full vote while people like tge would be counted as a normal player because he hasn't yet run one.

It's not meant to sound exclusionary, but when people find out there is an election they may rush to take the test so that their vote counts for more. This would just prevent any sort of tampering. And feel free to shoot this idea down. It's definitely not meant to be mean, just something that I thought of and thought would be good to mention before I fell asleep and forgot.

Other than that, you guys all seem to have this really well in hand. I'm impressed. You are all coming up with good ideas. I'm just sitting here with my thumbs up. Hee hee.

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

Chord: 1 to 2 or 1 to 1.5, either works for me Chord. I just used a whole number to make it simpler. Simple when making a plan and getting it to the masses tends to be better, than to be exact. We are in the discussion stage, so that 1.5 makes more sense now. I'm game either way.

Yeah, I was just thinking right now we have a lot of ASH's. Chord, Kirsten, and myself just became ASH's a little bit a go. In the grand scheme, 2 months is a little bit. However, if we had not, then it would just be the others and as Chord pointed out, at the moment Stome and Ali are unknowns. The one who's taking this to qualify for full SH doesn't get to vote. Which means, that would be only two ASH's left. It was due to that specific thought that led to the idea of the public getting one vote for a baseline policy.

I want this to last, not just be a "just use this one time" policy. So I was trying to cover all possibilities. Hence also the married couple/bias bit too. It gets hard making something, cuz it has to cover every possible conceivable variable. Sometimes separating the present situation from the whole can get weird.

Wow, Kirsten, good point. I didn't even think of that variable. Much much thanks. No, hardly mean. I'm glad you mentioned it. I didn't even think of that. Actually that is a bit of a sticky point. Unless there was some way to differentiate between returning retaking the system vs. brand new, I'd probably actually lump ASH 1's in the public area. Jill and I are indeed old A/SH's, however, things have changed... So some of our knowledge is no longer applicable. Look at a Limbo discussion where I did an example of the system and Jill asked why I rounded down .5 damage. What I was taught is different. It's a small little niggling detail, but it is an important detail. Example might not be the best, but it does how one little tiny change can be huge.

At least this is simpler than Electing heads. This is just a yay or nay kind of thing. The final test is more essay based and your no SH holding your hand sessions. So just a vote of do you get a raise. laughs

The election of heads, well that is already giving me a headache. laughs Yeah I looked at and thought about it and decided that a mallet is a much easier way to get a headache. And a bit more enjoyable.

wanders off thinking of that ASH1 thing I'll see if I come up with anything to address that. As much as I'd like to vote and have Jill and Mael vote, at this second, I'm unsure how. Give me an hour.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Technical details: We can

Technical post! >>

We can track how many sessions have been run for any account - so we can identify ASH1's who just got in the door vs. ASH1's who have at least a little bit of getting their toes in the water. It means an ASH 1 who walks in and then puts up a false session report could vote - but that's such a public action that it will be noticed and foul called before it goes anywhere.

For testing - given the same Test 1 and Test 2 work - those are automated. In order to get from one tier to the next you must pass the test and have the minimum sessions run before Test 3 will even trigger an application. So the application form is the one any judgement needs to go against ultimately - that's the unique essay-form piece of the series. It's also one all ASHs can see and is generated by code - so the access question resolves itself - the system can tell if it's in starvation mode and select who can submit the form to match the situation.

In addition - the feedback textarea is a required field in order for the approval or disapproval to be submitted - so you've got to give feedback. Wither the feedback is constructive or a long form version of "because I said so" isn't something the computer can help - but again - the answers are public so others can call foul on the matter.

We also added a LOT of cool anti-tampering on the back end over the year that may help you guys to know about: On the SH levels there's a lot of computerized limits on max-power for NPCs and Items created, when you can edit them and how to get them approved that removes the ability to operate secretly. Once approved an Item or NPCs numbers can't be changed after the fact - they have to go back into draft to be modified - at which point they have to go through an evaluation before approval again. That works like how char-eval works: an email goes out to every SH when that happens so it is extremely transparent. Any powerful Item or NPC is also listed on a SH available page called "Oversight" - so we know at all times exactly where the over-the-top elements are. We also track who approves a thing - so we can track every step along the way who's scratching whose back and can detect questionable patterns of approvals before during and after SH-dom is achieved.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Personal Post! >> I split

Personal Post! >> I split them up so you guys didn't get buried in the technical before getting to opinion, or vice versa:

For percentage needed to pass... I know this is going to sound counter intuitive... but I really think for this piece we need to look at needing low numbers of approvals to pass stage 3. While I like majority rules for establishing policies (as everyone knows), I don't like majority rules for establishing a pool of potential policy makers when there's no cap on how many we can have - and ideally we want everyone who can qualify.

The current system is configured for needing 3 people to ok the application for the person to get in. That wasn't selected because it was 75% of the current heads - it was selected because if you can get three current SH's to agree that a person is a good starting SH - then you've got enough of a consistent pattern to go ahead and get them in the door. But the higher the percentage of approvals we require, the more likely we will open the door to corruption. That's how cliques form.

Think of these rules from the point of view of "What happens if it's in the hands of my worst enemy?" In the worst case scenario there's a rush on the SH 'club' by self-interested parties - and the moment they have just enough votes to keep anyone out of the club that they don't like for entirely personal reasons... then the site has no recourse to break that power bloc. Getting in the door should be something we want to make sure is as wide as possible - and abuse and political maneuvering after getting in the door as limited as possible.

Perhaps it's worth adding to this process that when an SH goes up in Starvation mode (or even if not, maybe just in general) - we can label them as a probationary state for 3 months or so? Since the situation they got to the position under was somewhat rushed... at the end of that time-frame - if they don't screw up stuff - probie-status goes away without any further intervention. That way, you should still get limits on dumb-SH moves and preventing idiocy but move them forward without blocking site-progress.

Madius
Madius's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
3 days 6 hours ago
Tiebreaker

I have to say I like the idea of the sole SH vote being either a recommendation or a tiebreaker vote, rather than a direct deciding factor :) Back to the "worst enemy" rule, I don't want to have the sole power to deny someone right to become an SH when I'm the lone SH - there's an obvious conflict of interest there.

I do like letting the SH weigh in publicly or break a tie, though - there's good experience as an SH that most ASH 2's have, and it's valuable for all the same reasons. So either of those models (SH as non-voting recommendation or SH as tiebreaker only) would be my preference. I love letting the site vote, but Mael has a good point, and there's also a logistical concern. To avoid overtaxing the site, I like Chord's notion of a tie falls to the site to break :)

For the majority thing, I think we have enough tiebreaker mechanics in the work to allow for a simple majority to win out. If we require 75% approval, it gets too easy to block by an individual or pair, rather than half the voting body. Again, in the event of a tie, we have double fall-backs, so I kind of prefer the simplicity there. We also have a huge host of oversight once an SH gets approved and in play, so it's not as dangerous a post as it once was - the system (or, as I like to call him, "Friend Computer") automatically safeguards against a lot of abuses.

Site policy is a different discussion, though, but for SH votes, I think simple majority should do it.

Maelstrom
Maelstrom's picture.
Last online
3 years 8 months ago
There's...

...either a slight flaw in Bast's argument for low numbers needed to approve a new SH, or I'm completely misinterpreting what she's saying.

Right now, or rather, until recently, needing 3 SHs to approve a new one was a good number -because- it represented 75% of the SH number. That may not be why it was chosen, but that is why it was a good number. By her stated reasoning, it should stay set at 3 if I'm reading correctly. No, that's just wrong. Not counter-intuitive, but wrong. Her reasoning states that the number is enough to establish a trend. Well, if you have 10 SHs and 3 of them vote to approve a new SH and 7 of them vote against it, that's a pretty strong trend too. If 70% of the SH community is saying to not make someone an SH, I don't want that person becoming an SH until the reasons for it are resolved.

I brought up the various levels of approval ratings, ie., simple majority, 75%, unanimous; just so they would be in people's minds as they weighed in. My opinion on it tends to lean towards 'Simple Majority' for 'emergency mode' selections. Normal mode, I still lean towards 75% or better, though SiMa may work fine for that as well.

Quote:
Think of these rules from the point of view of "What happens if it's in the hands of my worst enemy?"

It's considerably more difficult to sway a majority of votes to block someone from becoming an SH, that it is to for someone to snag three votes to become an SH in spite of the majority being against it.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
The original idea I was asked

The original idea I was asked to implement had only approving as an option. Perhaps we need a three option there? Yes / No / Don't care?

But mostly my concern is how do you handle a situation that I've described? Where people are voting no but not because of questions about the candidates skill or fitness. Basically I'm looking for ways to avoid corruption here. Again - like Boblet - thinking super long term - twenty years from now, we've all filtered out, someone else is in.

many edits: Sorry - I've been trying to clarify what my brain was thinking for awhile now here. So bear with me as I pick through the logic.

Perhaps handling breaking up a power block needs to be in a different slice of site policy? Something where other people can throw a foul on the situation and call it out instead of here in the SH influx? I think that's where my brain was stuck, we probably need some sort of grievance handling but it probably needs to be elsewhere. Objections withdrawn now that I've sorted out where my brain was going with stuff.

Assuming we have some other way of handling it when/if something starts smelling in Denmark, then simple majority sounds good for SH's on my end.

Maelstrom
Maelstrom's picture.
Last online
3 years 8 months ago
Well...

...as I believe you previously stated, approval of an SH already requires an explanation of the approval/disapproval vote. If it's a valid concern, then it's valid. If someone votes just because they don't like the player, then the explanation ought to show as much and people can call bullshit.

There is no 100% perfect solution. It will still be people doing the voting, no matter what you put into place. And if you take the people out of the equation, the meaning of being an SH becomes lost. Is there potential for abuse? Yes. But it works in both directions. If you set the number below a majority, then there can arise cliques to get someone into an SH position that shouldn't be there. It works either way, for or against. Hopefully, A/SHs will be responsible enough and mature enough to treat the position with the respect it deserves. I believe that's part of A/SH training? If not, it should be. It's not just about numbers.

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
I just want to say...

That I like what's all being said. Though I think this is another one of those things that you guys are throwing numbers around and my brain goes 'Wha?....' Because I'm not coming up with anything better than what's already being said. lol

Though there are probably a couple of things that could be mentioned that might not really have anything to do with this, though it might. Regarding Stome and Ali and Tolex who have clearly not been around for a long time now. Stome over a month, Ali a little less than that and Tolex is about the same as Ali. None of them have put themselves on vacation mode either. So perhaps to make it easier to clarify who are still active and what not as to who's vote counts, isn't there a way to set up something to say force them to go into vacation mode? For an example, if a SH hasn't logged in for 4 weeks/1month, then the system can force them to go into vacation mode. Time frame is debatable and was just an idea. Besides, don't we have something set up so that if an account goes inactive after what? A year...? That the account is automatically filed off into the inactive folder?

As far as letting myself and Mael have a vote in all of this, perhaps setting it up to include or be based on the account HXP would be better? If possible? Though I am about to run my first session on the new system on Friday! :D My head is already to explode about that one. But anywho, don't know if anyone thought of that, but yeah... Now I'm just rambling, so! tosses you all a fresh bone

EDIT: (To accommodate new responses! :D)

Bast, I think that having a grievance process is a good idea, though that would probably fall under policies that could be implemented with People Department when we get that formed. Though something to look at for the new heads, whoever they be if not the people that have been informally nominated.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
@mael - sorry - was editing

@mael - sorry - was editing post while you replied trying to figure out where my brain was tripping over on stuff. It's actually two separate issues, so the 'something fishy here' thing can get kicked to the side for later handling. In the meantime - updated post upstream with response. ;)

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Re: responsibility on the ash

Re: responsibility on the ash's part I think so? but if not it's easy enough to add to ash1 as part of the training

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
@tanya YAY! a technical

@tanya YAY! a technical question I know the answer to and don't have to struggle to pick through my own fuzzy gut check logic on!

Ways to detect absence without you know - absence. Absolutely. The site can tell when someone was last online, last logged in etc. So if someone hasn't even looked at the site for a month we can tell. We'd just need to set the cutoff date and the account gets downgraded to player by Friend Computer. A simular thing is alreayd in place for players who have been absent for a year - at that point their account is deactivated and characters moved into cold storage. If they come back we can totally get them back up and running, but it let's us have a more accurate measure of activity.

What this doesn't catch is the guy who does login, doesn't go on vacation, but is effectively holding a sit in. Not doing the job, or only doing part of the job - glad to respond to some people, but pretending other people don't exist... the computer can detect some patterns of behavior that go with this: Having unread PMs from a month or ago. Or having a PM but no response to it within a month, not even a "hi - i'm really busy right now, will get back soon" acknowledgement. That sort of stuff the computer can at least go "Uh - guys? Can someone check this?" It's wibbly enough I'm hesitant to use that sort of activity monitor as the only deciding factor but it can definitely be used to highlight problems that may be occurring so that others can start looking at the situation.

Maelstrom
Maelstrom's picture.
Last online
3 years 8 months ago
Got it...

...Bast.

Another reason to bring back some version of People department. :)

I rather like the auto-vacation idea. Solves some issues. System already tracks logins and time-dependent actions already exist. Just add another. If a player doesn't login for 1 month, autoset the player to 'indefinite' vacation. I don't know all of the other time frame action things, so 1 month may not be the ideal window, but I like the concept.

Regarding letting me have a vote, I see no reason for it. I do not know the current system. I haven't even looked at the A/SH training course, which I'm sure is way different than the one I went through years ago. I may know a bit about being an SH, but I don't think myself currently qualified to decide if someone should be one or not. Plus, if exceptions for people like myself were made, then that opens up a whole line of issues that could cause other problems. Simple is almost always better. The more complex you make something, the more prone it is to failure. Keeping the votes within the A/SH community still makes the most sense to me.

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
For now

I think that just getting a better set of numbers and auto-vacationing those that haven't even logged in in a month or so, would give is more accurate info? o.O heh Rating activity though, that I believe would be something to discuss between Academy and People (once it's formed). Putting in a policy or something for that kind of situation. XD I already have loads of ideas that I want to bring up for stuff to put into People dept. :D Which means... I should get a note book and write this shit down baby! Oh yeah. coughs Ok. I'm fine.

Mael, damn it you're selling yourself short! Just because you don't know the system or you don't think that you have enough knowledge anymore. You have what a lot of us don't have being the old fart that you are. Experience. Not just in life, but on the site too! Now, while I can't speak for anyone else, I know that I value your opinion a lot. It's worth it's weight in gold to me. ^_^ So yes, your vote should bloody well count.

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
3 hours 11 min ago
I was going to bring this up

I think I may have briefly mentioned it to some people.

So quick little note here from my perception:

One of the reasons why I wanted to open discussions on returning the People Dept was in my mind I wanted to have some way for people to kind of start an investigation into SH's that they may have feel were abusing their power or something else. I say investigation because never know it could be a matter of misunderstanding, perceptions gone awry, or tantrums. The investigation imo would be a joint task between People and Academy. People would be looking for patterns of personal misbehavior, while Academy would look at the numbers and use of the system. If either end finds something fishy they can start the steps on dealing with the problems etc - could just be the SH needed more clarification on a ruling, or as I mentioned above, just one big misunderstanding.

I was wondering in part if it could be handled like an automated form like the Anon -mailer, only with more instructions - such as nature of the grievance, links to any relevant posts in vaxia (forum, or chatroom), and to provide any other pertinent items (such as im logs, pms, emails) - which could be potential evidence of the grievance.

Now of course this gets rather complicated when the grievance is against someone in People, and even in Academy (especially if it is a numbers thing) - which is why I haven't posted much on the thought because school began eating my face and I hadn't had the chance to fully think more on the idea or other alternatives of which that might be useful.

Now as for the voting - I can pretty much agree with a set number to try and reduce the possible corruption, or the majority - but like it has been mentioned I would probably go no higher then 75% majority (that lovely 3/4s that is used in many other forms) - but there definitely has to be some way to handle potential the whole something ain't right. Atm I have no suggestion on how to go about it (that whole brain space is occupied by case law woo) - but I dunno maybe one way to get ahead of the curb is to have the 3rd application - which is the SH application be readable by the public - its the idea of that whole if you can't say it in public kind of thing. Could be just me, but I think it would help encourage the SH's commenting to focus on the meat of the matter and would be able to leave out any personal jabs that they would have preferred to say in private. At the very least imo anyone that has taken the ASH 1 test should be able to see it.
Oo an appeals process! Ok, I think my brain has hit on something, but again I need time to think of details blah blah blah, gotta bounce the idea around and all that stuff. But if you know what a court of appeals is, you can see where my mind had wandered off to.

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
Update

The general consensus so far seems kind of going this way:

ASH Vote - If they've ran at least one session.
(Heh, guess if I care, I will have to be mean to Maddy at least once)

Public/Non ASH vote - No.

SH vote - Still semi in the air. Pretty close, seems like leaning towards recommendation/tie breaker

Total - Up in the air, though seems simple majority is the direction people are leaning

Note, this is ONLY for the Emergency/Starvation/Someone-Stole-my-Underpants Mode. This would be an exception to Site Policy. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called Emergency. laughs
---------------------

As for Site Policy, honestly folks, start another thread for overall site policy. It keeps things more distinct and easier to look up (if needed to later). I just want Emergency SH discussion here. I apologize if I'm sounding Bossy again, but I just want to keep other topics elsewhere. As they say, "get a room" or in this case, a forum thread. having mental imagery of topics and forum thread code making out "oooh, such beautiful numbers you have."/ giggles "Thank you." squeeze "And point #3....dreamy"

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Sounds about right for

Sounds about right for summary - I can work on the code to support this but before I do I want to make sure it's all good? Are we planning to do this up as a proposal for formal acceptance first? Or go ahead on it for now, and confirm the process as part of confirming the overall site policy chunk?

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

I was just giving a summary so far. That way people wouldn't have to read through everyone's post to get to the summary.

As for formal acceptance, first off lets worry about hashing out all the details. The SH points still seem to be in flux. As well as the total. I won't assume a yay or nay till I year it. Till then I just see "well not my preference but I can't think of anything better, so kind of leaning that way." That doesn't exactly scream an answer. laughs Call me picky.

We could do a proposal, but is this the sort of thing to propose to the whole community, considering I've pointed it out several times in Limbo when people were around and yet the only non A/SH responding is Mael? Or should we limit it to the A/SH community, which is actually one of Mael's point's that he's raised. It would mean no vote for Mael, but I (correct me if I'm assuming wrong Mael) suspect he's already expecting that sort of thing eventually.

As for the whole overall site policy, how much do you think this affects or would be effected by the overall policy? Considering this is kind of a doesn't follow normal rules due to not having enough people to follow the normal policy. I know your covering all bases and trying to cover our butts. Glad someone is point blank asking those questions. Hence my return questions. If you feel this would be covered under that and not end up being it's own 'subsection', then hell yes, do site policy. If even you are unsure, then I'd just go for making it a sub-section with "In case of Emergency as outlined above" (or below or wherever we deem what qualifies as site policy for emergency, which is pretty straight forward. Only 1 or 2 SH's exist, technically even 0 SH's due to so much automation).

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Cool - I'm mostly asking so I

Cool - I'm mostly asking so I can plan out my time/schedule for the next week or two for coding. If it's a go now - then I need to make the additions to support the emergency mode now so I have the time to properly test it and make sure it all works. If it's a wait two weeks during proposal - then I have more time and can schedule other stuff in that timeslot. Make more sense?

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
I think...

For now, that we leave the site policy for normal mode as is. We can change it later when we get more SH's, I think we should just focus on the emergency plan since that's what we need sooner rather than later.

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

I'm more or less of the opinion "go now" than of wait for the whole shebang that relies specifically on at least 3 SH's existing. Heh But that's my opinion.

Maelstrom
Maelstrom's picture.
Last online
3 years 8 months ago
I have...

... no problem with going ahead and putting an 'I Need Some Help Here!' mode into place. Once that gets 3 SHs active, then they can start hashing out site policy and such via normal mode of doing things, or redefining normal mode or whatever. As stated, I'm the only non-A/SH posting anything on any of the forums, except for the session invites and the "Dear SHanta, Please bring me a big gun so I can kill everyone more efficiently" forums. And no, I don't expect to get a vote. And I'm fine with that. Like I've said, I see no reason for an exception to be made for me and cause possible problems down the road. Ultimately, that's not really my call though. As Tanya said, perhaps players over a certain amount of HXP could get treated as an A/SH or something for voting purposes. I dunno. That's an A/SH community decision. I have no problem acting as a 'consultant', which I've done for ... a while, but I don't need to set policy.

"Can I Get A Witness!" mode: Simple majority vote from A/SH community to decide on 2 more SHs.
A/SH under review gets no vote, ie., can't vote for self.
Existing SH can offer a recommendation, but is not required to do so. Breaks a tie.
New SH 2 presents full recommendation for SH 3 and gets full vote.
A/SH under review gets no vote, ie., can't vote for self.
SH 1 can offer a recommendation, but is not required to do so. Breaks a tie.
Resume "We're All Here!" mode after reaching 3 SHs.
Go from there.

I'm swamped thru Tue, so I will not likely be as active on the forums, but I'll try to keep up-to-date and offer brief posts if I feel the need.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Hm, ok - perhaps a better way

Hm, ok - perhaps a better way to souse out the answer here? Consensus is "no one will walk away if we do X", doesn't mean everyone's happy about it - but if no one's gonna walk then it's good enough for now. It doesn't sound like anyone has any objections to pulling the trigger on the thread results. The situation we're in is a grey-zone with a time-pressure. So I don't expect this to repeat before we've had a chance to more formally address things.

So - the important question:

If we take the non-formal feedback in this thread so far on the emergency mode process as our go-ahead to act on it instead of running formal polling through a proposal with 2 week window: is anyone here gonna call foul after?

If not - let's get a headcount. If yes - let's hit the proposal system. Aka: Object now or hold your peace. ;)

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

@Mael - I've been using your name and till a month ago, I was in the same boat. I'll admit, I'm only an ASH just to get stuff done. How adamant I'll be about maintaining it down the road, no clue. That said, I'd still like to be able to weigh in on stuff, if only the discussions. But it got me thinking, say theoretically Vaxia is still going 10 more years down the road and Krakshot (first name that came to mind) was not an A/SH and cared about the site. I use names for current examples and immediate understanding. I'm not fond of cutting people out who have no desire to run sessions or lack the imagination, timing, or some other factor that limits session running, but do like helping the site. HXP could do it, but I don't know, something more maybe. Since you show no -immediate- concern over this (a.k.a. willingly and freely waiving "your rights"), then I'd say that can be something discussed through the site policy as it'd apply to different functions other than Emergency mode. If you didn't/don't waive, then yeah, I'd say hold off on final agreements here till site policy is figured out.

A little tired, so I hope that came out coherently, heh. If not, I'll answer tonight when I'm awake.

As for discussion specifically at hand. I'm going to recommend one small? change to your grins 'consultation'. If we have 2 SH's and voting in the third. SH 1, will instead get the full recommendation and vote, IF SH 2 has a conflict of interest with the subject of the vote (i.e. married, family member, etc). Basically reversing SH 1 and 2's rights if the above.

Otherwise, looks good to me.

----------

@Bast - to put it succinctly, I will not cry foul.
Less to the point, first I kicked this idea. Even changed and modified slightly still mine. Copyrighted and trademarked. I require 1 yen from everyone to use it. grins I kid. Point still stands, disagreeing with my own idea is kinda uh...stupid. laughs

I'm gonna say wait the weekend at least, give all our folks who've contributed anything, even just a "I like it" a chance to respond. Plus I'll see if I can raise the point in Limbo a couple more times when people are on. If we get no nays and me nudging the newer folk, and they do naught, then yeah, go ahead.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
Excellent - I'll keep an eye

Excellent - I'll keep an eye on it for the next few days then to see how things go. For purposes of head-counting if things are a go ahead, count me under the following:

* simple majority
* ASH if ran one session
* ASH 1 (if ran) and ASH 2 votes count the same amount
* SH vote as tiebreaker (more about avoiding power-blocking issues than conflict of interest here for me)
* Can't vote on/for yourself

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

Any opinion on 2 SH's part?

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
Perhaps...

We should define 'simple majority'. I'm not entirely sure what you all mean with that. Though if you're talking like a 51%/49% kind of thing, I'm not so gung ho about that one. I like the 75% and the SH as the tie breaker too. Otherwise I like the rest of it.

For the 2 SH's part actually... Why change the rules for that part? Giving just the second SH a full vote? Unless we give both SH's the full vote once we have two of them in place. Also, wouldn't we be resuming normal mode once we have 4 SH's, not 3?

Malimar
Malimar's picture.
Last online
5 years 4 months ago
Proposal it

This doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I don't know that I would trust an informal in-thread headcount. It should probably be officially proposal'd -- that's what the proposal system is for, after all. And there are a fair number of ideas floating in this thread, we should get them all straight.

Speaking of extra ideas: I might not necessarily oppose "a majority/supermajority vote of all ASHs counts as one SH for approval of new SHs" even in non-emergency situations. (I don't know that I would fully support that idea, though. I don't think I have an opinion on it just yet; I might come to decide I hate it. In fact, I already like it less than I did a minute ago.)

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

Jill, think about that. In order to have a tie (and thus have a tie breaker), that would require 50%/50%, at which point the SH vote wouldn't get the total to 75%. Maybe 64-66% (with our current roster) winks. Yes, I'm teasing you cuz I can. Ha! Okay no more teasing. The initial plan you and I kinda worked out, we had the SH as the tie breaker. Which kinda leaned towards "simple majority". Otherwise if you go by hard percents, then the SH vote wouldn't matter, because it'd never reach that 75%, unless you only had 4 or less ASHs voting (pending on whether you added the SH to whole ratio or not. Err example

4 ASHs. 100% divided equally into 4 parts would be 25% each. 25+25+25+25=100
Thusly for a tie, it'd be 2 ASH for and 2 against, 50%/50%

Now does the SH tie breaker count as 25% too? Even though he's a fifth vote to break a tie. Or does the ratio change, becoming 100% divided by 5 votes now? Which now means everyone only equals 20% per person. Which would now mean the total is 3 votes for and 2 against, or 60% (20% per vote)/40%.

Now the percent vs. the majority for an Emergency situation, I'm not saying I'm against or for either one. I'm just pointing out that you have to take in all the factors.

Plus there's another factor to consider. 10 years down the road, all but 1 SH leaves for whatever reason they left. The 1 SH left is the SH that just became an SH a week ago. Is his vote truly carrying enough weight behind it to break the tie all the way to 75%?

Which raises the next part, kind of, the 2 SH part. One of those two SH's is probably a brand spanking new SH. Which means their experience isn't a vast increase above the ASHs. Plus in cases of conflict of interest, One SH may have to abstain from voting. If this were an IC situation, Sam is a SH and Odette took her ASH 3 test. Alphonse is the other SH. Due to Sam and Odette dating, Sam can't vote. Leaving only Alphonse to vote. But lets pretend it's Sarav, instead. Now Sam and Alphonse can both vote. Does that seem fair to you? Alphonse isn't married or dating anyone so he can can always vote, but Sam is dating someone and if Odette should be applying for SH 3, he suddenly can't vote cuz of conflict of interest.

Basically, we were just trying to cover all eventualities. At least I think that's what Mael was going.

Lastly, the 3 SH's, look at my initial plan, I said 2 or 3 SH's total, including the pre-existing SH. People were using the 3 or at least 3. Maybe it's 4. Specifically what do you want? 2 SH's, 3 SH's, or 4 SHs in total (or some other number). I think most were also shooting for 3 just because it's a two thirds majority by that point. My opinion is 3. 4 if conflict of interest is involved.

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again

Me and numbers don't get along all that well. :P

Ok, I get what you're saying now. A better understanding. (even if the brain glazed over for a bit there. :P)

And as Malimar suggested, I'll go ahead and make up the proposal then based on the summary. Might take me a day or two, but I should be able to get it up before the weekend's end. And if no one has any objection to me doing it up.

admin
admin's picture.
Technical Admin
Last online
1 month 2 weeks ago
Let me know if you get stuck

Let me know if you get stuck on the proposal - the interface can be pretty clunky. But if you know what questions and what options you want to include in it I can help on the tech end to get it constructed.

Maelstrom
Maelstrom's picture.
Last online
3 years 8 months ago
Well...

...now, don't I look like the foolish one with a 'no time soon' SH/Co-Head returning after I recommended new peoples. To quote Han Solo, "It's not my fault!" :)

edit: actually, it was Lando. I say Han every damn time for some reason

In any case, I was suggesting a total of 3 SHs before shifting back to normal mode. Reason being, if there are no other immediate SH candidates after that, having 3 SHs insures there will be no ties in deciding anything. That's not our current case, but it -could- be. I think sticking with SiMa may work fine for SH decisions until there are 10 or more SHs active. At that point, I'd recommend shifting over to 75% or better. While in normal mode and using SiMa, I'd say the ASHs hold the tie break vote. They get a poll to decide direction of a single vote to break tie.

I think that's all I got right now. Brain is fried.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
2 months 1 week ago
All those make sense, I can

All those make sense, I can adjust the code while I'm under the hood to make all those configurable so if we need to adjust as the site shrinks or grows we can. I do like setting the percentage size relative to the existing #s on the site. That seems like a good tamper-resistant measure. So yeah - all of that sounds good to me. I can't think of anything to add, though this is probably gonna be a complex proposal at this point. ;)

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

Makes sense, Mael. When we start official site policy thread, if you don't post it, I'll link/copy paste your post into the thread, so it's not forgotten.

As for non Emergency mode, I'll list my thoughts on that when we get to that stage. Just to keep it cleaner.

snickers about Plas coming back Yes, it's all on you. I saw you driving around and then lassoing him, trussing him up like a pig, then driving back to his house and untying his arms. Then holding him at gunpoint, telling him to log in and reply/post. So definitely on you. grins Somehow I could picture you doing that too, which is all the more funny.

krakshot
krakshot's picture.
Last online
1 year 1 month ago
Don't know if this changes anything, but:

Malimar, AKA Plasma is back. He's a SH, isn't he?

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

Krak - Ever so slightly, part of this is also just policy in general, should something ever happen like this again. Instead of needing to get 2 ASHs promoted to SH, now we just need one.

admin
admin's picture.
Technical Admin
Last online
1 month 2 weeks ago
The proposal looks well

The proposal looks well underway, so I figured I'd come back on a thing we've been looking at in this thread, from here: "I think that just getting a better set of numbers and auto-vacationing those that haven't even logged in in a month or so, would give is more accurate info? o.O heh "

I took a look at the data from a snapshot of the database on May 5th, to see what sort of patterns are in place. Based on how we seem to be using PMs (not just as messages, but places to drop notes or meeting notes) I don't think tracking PMs that haven't been replied to is going to be useful. Too many false positives.

The stats that probably are useful for determining when someone seems to have vanished: Last accessed the site, Last posted, Last character evaluated (where relevant), Last item evaluated (again, where relevant), and oldest PM not read.

Does that sounds about roughly right as an eyeball of "is this person interested in being here or not?" to everyone else? I ran these against the stats as of May 5th and the combination seemed to be a pretty solid pattern. If folks are really interested in those numbers I can put them up, but that seems like something to be asked for, not just dumped on a forum thread.

admin
admin's picture.
Technical Admin
Last online
1 month 2 weeks ago
Code for supporting the ASH

Code for supporting the ASH starvation mode protocol is in place - the exact percentages and which roles are allowed initial voting are configurable, so they can be updated as needed based on the results.

Madius
Madius's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
3 days 6 hours ago
The results are in!

Thanks again Tanya for setting the proposal up :)

Results are here: http://192.155.94.202/proposals/emergency-sh-approval

Seems pretty clear cut, with 100% active players weighing in (thanks, everybody!)

If I'm reading this right, we're looking at all ASH 1s and higher who've run at least one session being the voting body, and only a simple majority needed. With all the comments around the public vote, do we want to have more discussion on exactly what shape that should take, or just leave it as a simple "12th man" sort of summary vote? I'll leave that debate up to y'all :) Hopefully it won't be immediately necessary given that we have a good number of ASHs to hopefully ensure a fair vote on any SH candidate.

So, unless there are any last objections, I say we go ahead and switch over to 'starvation mode,' since we're still at least 1 SH short of a quorum.

Tanya
Tanya's picture.
Last online
1 year 3 months ago
Maddy beat me to it...

You're welcome. And thank you to everyone for taking the time to complete the proposal.

I don't have any further objections. After this, I guess it's time to open a new thread on replacing the heads that we're missing. (For some reason that sounds wrong, but that could be because of the late hour I'm writing this at too. XD)

Boblet
Boblet's picture.
Last online
1 year 8 months ago
.

Nah we get this formalized, and put into site policy somewhere on site so it's permanent. Can be amended later if need be. But I'd rather see it somewhere where anyone can read it and it can be backed up.

Then get our ASH's in waiting through and see if they are SH's now, the one or two we have

Then we can discuss department stuff, but I'd prefer to have 3 SH's by then.

admin
admin's picture.
Technical Admin
Last online
1 month 2 weeks ago
Yay! Good proposal! I'm

Yay! Good proposal! I'm really glad you guys kicked this one forward to getting it all done. :)

I'm gonna finish setting up the settings then for the starvation mode. The system will cut out of starvation once we have the minimum # of SHs needed for standard mode, so it's an automatic sort of thing. Once that's set - ASH's should be able to put in votes existing applications.

edit: Done