AU Mod-Power of the People

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
Likely accurate but also unhelpful

Sorry, I misread your question (which is about cdgroup.org and not the AU name). Thanks for the joke; in my circles it usually involves programmers and management.




Dominae

[alexman]

Good one, Catt.

CDG got credit for the AU mod because Firaxis pays more attention to CDG than they do to Apolyton. They asked them to submit their mods for the bonus CD, but they didn't ask come here to ask at all. So I submitted the AU mod through CDG.

As for the "power of the people" vote, I think it's a good idea and we should definitely do it that way. It's one panelist that's sure to show up every time, and it keeps the interest of the community alive. Even newcomers can be active with ideas and discussion in the creation of the mod, and they still get to make a difference in the voting. It's as simple as having an odd number of panelists, but with an extra poll in the case of a close decision.

It should be a tie-breaking vote because a such a vote still has exactly the same weight as one panelist's vote (it's just like voting last every time), but we won't have to set up a poll for every single decision.

PS. And stop voting in this poll! There is no reason for giving two votes to one panelist instead of having an odd number of panelists.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by alexman
As for the "power of the people" vote, I think it's a good idea and we should definitely do it that way. It's one panelist that's sure to show up every time, and it keeps the interest of the community alive.

I want to be heard! The people demand a vote!!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Catt
Why don't we just leave the six panelists in place and provide that changes from stock require a majority (4 votes) so there is never a chance of a split deadlocking a proposal?

I can imagine a few instances where this rule WOULD produce some kind of deadlock. E.g., the panelists all agree that some game feature needs to be changed (say, Communism as it was in PtW), there are TWO elaborated, yet outright different proposals how to improve this feature, and the panel is split on these proposals (3-3). The majority rule would result in no change at all, although the panelists DO regard this as the worst solution.

Also, there's the possible case that a new feature (say, wheeled tanks) is included because of a majority (4-2). Later, some exploit involving this feature is discovered (say, Catt manages to fool the AI by roading a mountain chain with a worker SOD in one turn and then striking with his tank force ). One panelist changes his mind and there's a split again (3-3). Now, is this sufficient to retract the feature? (Maybe the panel soon comes up with 'yes' or 'no', but it's a potential controversy.)

So, I'm with Dominae and would prefer an odd number of panelists (even if that would make me drop out) just to keep things simple. An even number plus a public poll (only acting as a tie-breaker) is also acceptable for me, although I'd like to mention the possibility that the public poll results in a tie.

BTW, Catt, considering the dedication you show at these forums you'd really be suited as a panelist.

[Tassadar500]

lockstep that's assuming we use 5 panelists. You and all the other panelists will stay if we use 7.

[ZargonX]

I think an odd number of panelists is a must, for the reasons elaborated above. That would eliminate the possibility of a tie vote, barring a panelist abstaining for any reason.

The way I see it, the panel is mostly there to filter the public's desires into a workable final product, not to so much dictate what should be changed based on their views. Do others have a different vision, or are we in agreement?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by lockstep
An even number plus a public poll (only acting as a tie-breaker) is also acceptable for me, although I'd like to mention the possibility that the public poll results in a tie.

I thought this was the point of having a "power of the people" seventh panel seat. In the case of a three/three split from the panelists, you poll the rest of us. That is the best solution in my opinion. Makes me feel more invested in the final outcome, thus encouraging further participation.

[Tassadar500]

I'll just see how this debate plays out

[alexman]

Maybe another poll?

[Alexander's Horse]

too many mods of the game imo

[Tassadar500]

No one cares about your opinion AH

[kring]

Originally posted by Stuie


I thought this was the point of having a "power of the people" seventh panel seat. In the case of a three/three split from the panelists, you poll the rest of us. That is the best solution in my opinion. Makes me feel more invested in the final outcome, thus encouraging further participation.

I agree