Voting Phases & Final Ballot

[LWPD]

This topic came up in a conversation I had with Mike M (who created Early Classics and will be providing the preamble).

How many phases should there be to the induction process?

I'm partial to a two phases system where a vote for reaching 'final ballot' status is taken after each story arc....which would then create a list of final ballot candidates and set the table for the drama of an ultimate induction vote. For example:

1. Thread Created: Early Classics Era Set Candidates

2. The submitted preamble is posted along with a general list of all the candidates from that specific set

3. Free form posting by everyone partaking in the project will follow on that thread

4. After a select period of time...the next game edition thread (in this case 2074) would be introduced with a new preamble/candidate listing...and then a repeat of the free form process

5. Since candidates obviously exist throughout the span of these sets the true benefit of each preamble is to provide some form of information on 'new characters' within an edition so that everyone who has been created in CotG is to some extent brought to light and made visible...but the general conversation in free form thereafter can and will go wherever the posters want it to

6. Then a 'final ballot' vote is taken per story arc period. For example...once the Candidate Set threads have been created for Early Classics, 2074, 2079, 2082, 2086....a vote is taken on who among that grouping of candidates should qualify for 'final ballot' status upon the completion of the process (and the final induction vote)...and then the next grouping of sets by story arc begins with the same process

7. Upon completion of all sets the Final Ballot would provide the basis to vote upon ultimate induction into the CotG HOF

I'm open to any alternative ideas that may be more productive or create a higher quality project...but I think this would be the most practical, straight forward and easiest approach to execute. Please vote and help inform the process.

[Eliath]

My only concern with this is that something, somewhere along the line is going to get lost. As I read this the first time I found the whole process to be confusing. After reading it a second time I understand exactly what you want to do. I believe that people want to discuss and then vote. I am not sure that we will keep the interest up for multiple votes.

I think we might be getting a little too detail oriented about this as it is starting to become a chore instead of something fun and broadening of the game we all love. I vote lets keep it simple and fun.

[Wildfire]

I agree with Eliath that simple is good.

[Dragon Breath]

I like Paint's idea.

Elaith,

I think the best way to keep someone or something from geting lost is for the process to be very detail oriented. I believe that we are about to embark on a very slow and very delibrate process.

[Eliath]

Dragon Breath,

I agree that attention to detail is a fantastic thing..but at the same time it is NOT necessary to make this very slow & very deliberate process over complicated and boring. Doing so will only cause people like me who prefer things simple to find something else to do with my hobby time like play more CotG instead of share my insights with you on CotG HOF voting and experiences.

Simple does not mean lacking attention to detail. Everyone has an opinion of who should get in immedately (or shortly thereafter) once they see the list. What can be gained from overcomplicating the process by asking that person to vote again after they have voted once? Its a good thing that we are taking our time and being deliberate in what we are doing, but my interest in this project is starting to wane and I don't think I am alone.

As things stand right now this is my understanding of the project so far:

.........There is going to be a preamble detailing each game year................

I couldn't tell you how ANYTHING is going to work or what will be expected of me or anyone else through this process because it is currently mish-mash of questions and polls and ZERO clear definition of THIS IS HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. You are asking 20 or so people to participate in something important, but you are not giving clear, concise direction or expectation to them. So I am expecting only utter chaos that I see right now to run amok through this until SOMEONE steps up to put things into form.

Give me a call when you figure out exactly what the hell is going on. I am frustrated beyond all measure at this point with this project. It is one thing to take your time and make sure nothing gets missed, but this is crazy. Lets go.

[LWPD]

eliath said:

As things stand right now this is my understanding of the project so far:

.........There is going to be a preamble detailing each game year................

I couldn't tell you how ANYTHING is going to work or what will be expected of me or anyone else through this process because it is currently mish-mash of questions and polls and ZERO clear definition of THIS IS HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. You are asking 20 or so people to participate in something important, but you are not giving clear, concise direction or expectation to them. So I am expecting only utter chaos that I see right now to run amok through this until SOMEONE steps up to put things into form.

Give me a call when you figure out exactly what the hell is going on. I am frustrated beyond all measure at this point with this project. It is one thing to take your time and make sure nothing gets missed, but this is crazy. Lets go.

Eliath

The very first poll set the pacing for this formative part of the project. It introduced a vote on the amount of time that these institution building polls would be open and in place. The majority voted for a one month period (starting April 8th). It's only been a week since then. While I appreciate your 'frustration'...I would hope you will respect that.

As for 'mish mash' polls...this is a collaborative process. I said from the outset that it's not my (or anyone else's) place to 'direct' and dictate how a CotG HOF should be structured. The format is being built from scratch and is 'purposely' without a predetermined direction. To build something from nothing requires time, effort and an understanding that moving from the abstract to the concrete creates periods of ambiguity. It also requires respect and cooperation in the face of an inherently less than perfect process. We can only make it 'more perfect' by working together.

At this point...what patterns have the polls directed us toward?

1. Institution Building Polls are open for one month (beginning April 8th)

2. Threshold for Induction stands at 75%

3. A retirement period of 5 years is required before eligibility

4. A combination of open and closed ballots will be accepted

5. There will be separate wings (execution to be determined)

6. There will be a restricted amount of affirmative votes

7. Each candidate will be judged on standards independent from official storylines

The 'mish mash' poll issue for this thread regards determining the number of voting phases. It's not only important as a stand alone issue...but it also helps to calculate the formula behind issue number 6 (how many affirmative votes will be allowed per voter). It's not as simple as just go out and vote...these are interconnected issues with a 75% threshold set in place from a prior vote...a logical structure has to be in place to make the system work.

While I appreciate the views of anyone who votes for 'something else' besides a mass uniform vote or a two phase induction period...when doing so please elaborate as to what that 'something else' should be.

[LWPD]

arctus said:

I like Paint's idea.

Elaith,

I think the best way to keep someone or something from geting lost is for the process to be very detail oriented. I believe that we are about to embark on a very slow and very delibrate process.

We're on the same page my friend.

[Eliath]

lwpd said:

Eliath

The very first poll set the pacing for this formative part of the project. It introduced a vote on the amount of time that these institution building polls would be open and in place. The majority voted for a one month period (starting April 8th). It's only been a week since then. While I appreciate your 'frustration'...I would hope you will respect that.

As for 'mish mash' polls...this is a collaborative process. I said from the outset that it's not my (or anyone else's) place to 'direct' and dictate how a CotG HOF should be structured. The format is being built from scratch and is 'purposely' without a predetermined direction. To build something from nothing requires time, effort and an understanding that moving from the abstract to the concrete creates periods of ambiguity. It also requires respect and cooperation in the face of an inherently less than perfect process. We can only make it 'more perfect' by working together.

At this point...what patterns have the polls directed us toward?

1. Institution Building Polls are open for one month (beginning April 8th)

2. Threshold for Induction stands at 75%

3. A retirement period of 5 years is required before eligibility

4. A combination of open and closed ballots will be accepted

5. There will be separate wings (execution to be determined)

6. There will be a restricted amount of affirmative votes

7. Each candidate will be judged on standards independent from official storylines

The 'mish mash' poll issue for this thread regards determining the number of voting phases. It's not only important as a stand alone issue...but it also helps to calculate the formula behind issue number 6 (how many affirmative votes will be allowed per voter). It's not as simple as just go out and vote...these are interconnected issues with a 75% threshold set in place from a prior vote...a logical structure has to be in place to make the system work.

While I appreciate the views of anyone who votes for 'something else' besides a mass uniform vote or a two phase induction period...when doing so please elaborate as to what that 'something else' should be.

Well, I suppose that I will just play CotG. My fed and experience are too distinctly different to have any value here. Best of luck to everyone.

[LWPD]

eliath said:

lwpd said:

Eliath

The very first poll set the pacing for this formative part of the project. It introduced a vote on the amount of time that these institution building polls would be open and in place. The majority voted for a one month period (starting April 8th). It's only been a week since then. While I appreciate your 'frustration'...I would hope you will respect that.

As for 'mish mash' polls...this is a collaborative process. I said from the outset that it's not my (or anyone else's) place to 'direct' and dictate how a CotG HOF should be structured. The format is being built from scratch and is 'purposely' without a predetermined direction. To build something from nothing requires time, effort and an understanding that moving from the abstract to the concrete creates periods of ambiguity. It also requires respect and cooperation in the face of an inherently less than perfect process. We can only make it 'more perfect' by working together.

At this point...what patterns have the polls directed us toward?

1. Institution Building Polls are open for one month (beginning April 8th)

2. Threshold for Induction stands at 75%

3. A retirement period of 5 years is required before eligibility

4. A combination of open and closed ballots will be accepted

5. There will be separate wings (execution to be determined)

6. There will be a restricted amount of affirmative votes

7. Each candidate will be judged on standards independent from official storylines

The 'mish mash' poll issue for this thread regards determining the number of voting phases. It's not only important as a stand alone issue...but it also helps to calculate the formula behind issue number 6 (how many affirmative votes will be allowed per voter). It's not as simple as just go out and vote...these are interconnected issues with a 75% threshold set in place from a prior vote...a logical structure has to be in place to make the system work.

While I appreciate the views of anyone who votes for 'something else' besides a mass uniform vote or a two phase induction period...when doing so please elaborate as to what that 'something else' should be.

Well, I suppose that I will just play CotG. My fed and experience are too distinctly different to have any value here. Best of luck to everyone.

Eliath

Know that there's no hard feelings on your decision...and the door remains open for you to participate down the road.