| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Clan :: FT Community Clan |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Two-Stage Proposals | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| Knightrider |
|
||
Meteor 2016
Registered Member #316
Joined: Mon Jun 26 2006, 09:14PMPosts: 3503 |
[FT wrote ... (.)(.)'s a] My opinion: who wants to wait weeks for a vote or duscussion we need to get to the point of things instead of have a reality based FT clan, tv show style. Seriously we are smart enough to make a decision in 3to3. Any longer then that will make the process corny and lame. The reason it was gone before was because it took to long and became pointless after a few weeks of talking about something simple as hi and/or bye to the clan. If the discussion takes longer then 3 days then cool but it shouldn't be longer unless the situation makes it that way. Basically it should be on a case by case basis, but the overall rule should be 3 days for both. Well the whole idea with 3 to 6 was so that people who usually do not make the forums as much as people who do would have a chance to vote whether then to miss it. That was the whole idea with a 6 day voting phase. It should just be 3 days for the discussion and 6 for the vote, but leave the discussion open during voting, so the people who missed the phase would have a chance to put some input in. The person that made the nomination would be responsible for tallying up the votes at the end of the nomination. That way, during the overall 9 day period, people who later posted in the discussion phase could maybe sway some opinions, and votes could be changed. I see no need to cause confusion by someone randomly saying that it is like 14-7 yes's and no's. I think it should be left up to the person who made the thread to do after the end of the nomination. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| scope_uk |
|
||
scope_uk
Registered Member #389
Joined: Thu Aug 17 2006, 10:20PMPosts: 598 |
There's no rush to vote people into FT so I wouldn't mind waiting a week for some clarification. I suggest ________________________________________ Monday - Discussion starts. Tuesday - "" Wednesday -"" ________________________________________ Thursday - The thread maker (or anyone else) creates a simple post saying Discussion ended then his/her vote. Voting starts (only yes/no posts to make it easier and more straight forward for the thread starter, any other posts would be deleted) Friday - "" Saturday - "" Sunday - "" ________________________________________ Monday - Results in thread closes. ________________________________________ To me that's enough time and it's simple but again the amount of days etc could be changed and it's easier for the thread maker to remember. If people do start flooding the thread (if this discussion -/- vote stages come into place then) then simply delete the posts (If they do it in the voting stage that is) Edited Tue Oct 30 2007, 07:50PM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Wildcard23 |
|
||
Registered Member #514
Joined: Wed Dec 20 2006, 06:33AMPosts: 1067 |
aborted fetus wrote ... Who was the all-knowing, all-wise individual who took it upon himself to delete the open (and valid) Awse and Wild termination threads? Just curious who made that decision for the whole clan. Who's taking ownership for that? Not to hijack Alex's thread but before accusations get thrown my way, I did NOT delete the threads. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Madvillain |
|
||
Registered Member #445
Joined: Sun Oct 01 2006, 11:42PMPosts: 2233 |
then how about we leave the days of discussion and days of voting up to the person making the thread. many times there are proposals that are basically decided before the days are up, so no need to drag it out. for the most part i would imagine there be a minimun and a maximum amount of days. Alcohol-Powered wrote ... I think if we avoid all the wacky time constraints that the old process had and go with the more relaxed approach of the current system we can make this work. these minimums and maximums wouldn't be really stressed, just guidelines so threads aren't cut short, or drag on forever (similar to the 30 post requirement to be an ft member). I'm thinking between 3 - 6 days for each, however it might be better to leave the discussion part open. Wu-banga wrote ... except when the occasional person forgot they made a nomination thread, and then never finished up the procedure. people usually forget about the thread waiting for the 6 days to finish up, so if we do not really stress this rule it'll probably lower the amount of forgotten proposals. Zero wrote ... Also, could we have a seperate PRIVATE forum for these discussions, so that people not in the clan couldnt even look in this forum. Becasue I dont know about everyone else, but I dont think some people should be able to read the discussions. Also if I was a new member, I wouldnt even want to see what people were saying about me. This would also *somewhat* reduce public bullying and flaming. this does make sense, i mean i have seen people get angry at others for the way that a person might of voted, however i figure these problems would be resolved in the discussion part of this system. as far as "seeing what others think about you" is concerned, I feel this is something that should be in the open, so that after the votes are counted and a result is given there isn't any questions about the voting results. hopefully this all makes sense, if not i could clarify a bit more. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| alcosatz |
|
||
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PMPosts: 1545 |
Let me first say thank you to all of you that have provided concerns and opinions on this topic!  It's nice to know that many of us can still sit down and have a civil discussion.I see some potential setbacks with the idea of leaving the discussion thread open. While I do acknowledge that there are benefits to leaving the discussion thread open during the voting phase (to give slowpokes  a chance to share their opinions), I see this as a marginal improvement to the mixed discussion/voting system we have now. Were the discussion thread left open during voting I still see the inefficiencies and confusion existing. The clutter would be gone, but the problem of each member probably not having vital information BEFORE he or she casts his or her vote will still be present.If you think leaving discussion open for three days is too short then consider what happens now. Now I need to check any current vote several times daily in case new info comes out and I need to consider changing or dropping my vote... talk about a hassle! Consider the recent terminations with the above issue. I don't want to name specifics when I say that several votes (I believe about a dozen or so) were cast in a recent termination thread before a real eye-opener was posted by a member. Somewhat negative tone aside, the eye-opening post DID have valid information that may have given others a better perspective. Then the game begins of various members insinuating previous voters are ignorant because they don't know what the "enlightened" voter knows... It's almost as if the first few pages of voters are marked for death if they don't possibly know what late voters will post. It beckons public harassment and namecalling when tempers flare and the polls are still open. I think this trend will continue for terminations if voting and public discussion are concurrent. As far as the timing issues go... I can see this is going to be a stumbling block. I tend to agree with tits' approach to this because things need to get taken care of in a reasonable amount of time. Spending more than a week on cut and dry issues seems like a waste to me, but only three days to discuss may be too short for big issues. Discussion time should be flexible, something like three to six days, and if ample time is taken to discuss an issue there is no need to leaving voting open longer than three days. It shouldn't take more than a few days to digest the information from the discussion stage and formulate an opinion. If you read and/or participated in the discussion phase then you know a vote is coming up soon--schedule your time accordingly. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| alcosatz |
|
||
|
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PM Posts: 1545 |
Thread started by: Alcohol-Powered Mon Oct 29 2007, 10:34PM, last thread (prior to this one): Alcohol-Powered Tue Oct 30 2007, 05:39PM. 24 replies in less than a day and then nothing. Is it safe to say that a standard discussion period of 3 days, with an optional six days max, up to the proposal starter, is legit? 
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Zero |
|
||
I want to fuck your hand.
Registered Member #571
Joined: Thu Feb 15 2007, 09:59PMPosts: 2809 |
Alcohol-Powered wrote ... Thread started by: Alcohol-Powered Mon Oct 29 2007, 10:34PM, last thread (prior to this one): Alcohol-Powered Tue Oct 30 2007, 05:39PM. 24 replies in less than a day and then nothing. Is it safe to say that a standard discussion period of 3 days, with an optional six days max, up to the proposal starter, is legit? You know I agree with that, lol. But I still say, depending on if whatever being voted on is cut and dry or not, it is up to the thread started if he/she wants certain amount of days for discussion/voting. For instance. If they feel a member being inducted with go through voting with flying colors, they may reduce discussion to 2 days, and then voting to 2, or maybe even 3. but keepign it short altogether feeling confident. but then, with something like Awse termination where there were alot of opinions, they would set discussion for 3-5 days, and then voting for 6 or more. idk... that makes it more confusing, but idk. If the requirement for the old ones was 6, I didnt understand why for every vote people were like "Idk how many days... I guess 6 days for vote? sounds good to me!!" when in all reality, they could have mixed it up and put however many days they wanted. Im fucking confusing myself, I agree with you Alex and that idea seems like it would work. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Wildcard23 |
|
||
|
Registered Member #514
Joined: Wed Dec 20 2006, 06:33AM Posts: 1067 |
Alcohol-Powered wrote ... Thread started by: Alcohol-Powered Mon Oct 29 2007, 10:34PM, last thread (prior to this one): Alcohol-Powered Tue Oct 30 2007, 05:39PM. 24 replies in less than a day and then nothing. Is it safe to say that a standard discussion period of 3 days, with an optional six days max, up to the proposal starter, is legit? I think it would work AP. I agree with Titties that you just want to get to the core of it as quickly as possible. 3 day discussion should give you feedback as to what people think. I guess having the option to make it six days is good for certain situations. By default it should be 3 days discussion unless otherwise specified by the thread starter. Then standard 6 days for the vote unless we are looking to modify that too.
Edited Mon Nov 05 2007, 11:34AM
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| alcosatz |
|
||
|
FT Classic Op
Registered Member #39
Joined: Fri Dec 02 2005, 10:30PM Posts: 1545 |
Zero, I was thinking the person who makes the proposal should gauge interest after three days. If it appears people are still constructively discussing/arguing the proposal then it should continue. if not then go ahead and finish out the discussion phase and start a vote. Two days for discussion is too short IMO. So you guys really think six days of voting IN ADDITION to three to six days of discussion is reasonable? That's pushing two weeks! As I said in a previous post: when the discussion is over it will probably not take more than a few days (most likely hours) for you to consider arguments raised in the discussion phase and reach a conclusion. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|