Questions & Comments

[Dugym]

Not voting yes or no is an option people can choose. There are proposals people just have no interest in. Skipping a vote is fine.

What if people don't see it?


@QuirkyAngel @LifeNovel @Reinhardt @LunarShines @Mr. Gideon @NeoLeaf @Grey @clarinetti @Hange Zoe @Brook @Gabriel97 @Kiyoko Tomoe @Dullahan Shinigami @Zenaida @MedievalMethods


Did you guys see my two proposals: "Progressive Writing Group" and "Everything You Need to Know About Roleplay Nation"?

 

[QuirkyAngel]

What if people don't see it?


@QuirkyAngel @LifeNovel @Reinhardt @LunarShines @Mr. Gideon @NeoLeaf @Grey @clarinetti @Hange Zoe @Brook @Gabriel97 @Kiyoko Tomoe @Dullahan Shinigami @Zenaida @MedievalMethods


Did you guys see my two proposals: "Progressive Writing Group" and "Everything You Need to Know About Roleplay Nation"?

I did. I declined to vote since I was iffy about both. I didn't hate the proposal enough to vote 'no' but didn't like it enough to vote 'yes' either.

 

[NeoLeaf]

I voted both of them.

 

[White Masquerade]

What if people don't see it?


@QuirkyAngel @LifeNovel @Reinhardt @LunarShines @Mr. Gideon @NeoLeaf @Grey @clarinetti @Hange Zoe @Brook @Gabriel97 @Kiyoko Tomoe @Dullahan Shinigami @Zenaida @MedievalMethods


Did you guys see my two proposals: "Progressive Writing Group" and "Everything You Need to Know About Roleplay Nation"?

I am sure people check proposals. If not interested in doing so, a person is free to exit the group. This is entirely voluntary, so it'd be weird for someone to stay in something they're not interested in/check occasionally.


In my opinion there actually needs to be MORE proposals that people can check on. It's kind of empty =).

 

[Grey]

I am always watching.


I am also, always, doubting, and disinclined to vote on a lot of what I see.

 

[Susanoo]

I see everything 

 

[Axiom Days]

Eh, I'm often times disinclined give my opinion on something i dont really care about. And, it feels rude to say no.

 

[Kiyoko Tomoe]

What if people don't see it?


@QuirkyAngel @LifeNovel @Reinhardt @LunarShines @Mr. Gideon @NeoLeaf @Grey @clarinetti @Hange Zoe @Brook @Gabriel97 @Kiyoko Tomoe @Dullahan Shinigami @Zenaida @MedievalMethods


Did you guys see my two proposals: "Progressive Writing Group" and "Everything You Need to Know About Roleplay Nation"?

I didn't see it myself.

 

[Dugym]

Not voting is as good as voting against something.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Not voting is as good as voting against something.

I think sometimes that abstaining from voting may be either because one feels that they need more information, or because one feels guilty actively voting against something, but doesn't want to vote for it either. Of course at the same time, it's important to read the suggestions and try to make sure that the voting process is completely as easily as possible, so I do agree that voting is the best option if possible. Though voting shouldn't be mandatory for the reasons I've listed, so it's up to each person to decide for themselves how they want to approach the voting process.


Perhaps with all of that in mind however it's important to remind people (perhaps a few days to a week prior to voting closing) just in case they've forgotten.

 

[Dugym]

I think sometimes that abstaining from voting may be either because one feels that they need more information, or because one feels guilty actively voting against something, but doesn't want to vote for it either. Of course at the same time, it's important to read the suggestions and try to make sure that the voting process is completely as easily as possible, so I do agree that voting is the best option if possible. Though voting shouldn't be mandatory for the reasons I've listed, so it's up to each person to decide for themselves how they want to approach the voting process.


Perhaps with all of that in mind however it's important to remind people (perhaps a few days to a week prior to voting closing) just in case they've forgotten.

If they need more information, they can ask. Also, I can understand the guilt stance, but if enough people abstain, then it doesn't pass, because not enough people voted for it.


We need some way to fix the voting system. I say remove the two week limit and a proposal will close once everyone votes. That gives people plenty of time to gather whatever they need.

 

[Grey]

What about the people who don't vote because while they do not want to participate in the project proposed, but have no objection to it?


A lot of proposals aren't anything I'm inclined to spend time or energy on, but I don't necessarily want to block others or imply condemnation.

 

[ApfelSeine]

If they need more information, they can ask. Also, I can understand the guilt stance, but if enough people abstain, then it doesn't pass, because not enough people voted for it.


We need some way to fix the voting system. I say remove the two week limit and a proposal will close once everyone votes. That gives people plenty of time to gather whatever they need.

Usually people will ask if they want more information, then vote if they're satisfied, or abstain if they're still not sure. Personally, I lean towards voting in favor of something if I'm uncertain, but it's really up to the individual. As for the guilt aspect, if people abstain because they feel guilty about voting no, forcing them to vote would mean that they would vote no anyways, and the proposal still wouldn't pass.


The two week limit does have it's pros and cons. I think most information can be gathered within that time, and having a time limit is an incentive to vote one way or another before the deadline. More than changing the time limits, though there is good reason to suggest that, I think that just giving gentle reminders to those who haven't voted after a week would do just as much to get people to vote.

What about the people who don't vote because while they do not want to participate in the project proposed, but have no objection to it?


A lot of proposals aren't anything I'm inclined to spend time or energy on, but I don't necessarily want to block others or imply condemnation.

I think that since voting isn't a commitment to the project, you should vote in favor of such things. If you think it's a project that there's merit to people spending time on (even if that group of people doesn't include yourself), you can vote in favor of it without needing to engage in it yourself once the project is underway. At least, that's what White said earlier about it.

 

[Dugym]

What about the people who don't vote because while they do not want to participate in the project proposed, but have no objection to it?


A lot of proposals aren't anything I'm inclined to spend time or energy on, but I don't necessarily want to block others or imply condemnation.

Good question. I have an idea for that too.


Anyone who wishes to abstain would not count in the 60%. So, if 5 people out of 19 wish to abstain, only 8 people need to vote for a proposal in order for it to pass.

 

[Dugym]

I think that since voting isn't a commitment to the project, you should vote in favor of such things. If you think it's a project that there's merit to people spending time on (even if that group of people doesn't include yourself), you can vote in favor of it without needing to engage in it yourself once the project is underway. At least, that's what White said earlier about it.

I like this.

The two week limit does have it's pros and cons. I think most information can be gathered within that time, and having a time limit is an incentive to vote one way or another before the deadline. More than changing the time limits, though there is good reason to suggest that, I think that just giving gentle reminders to those who haven't voted after a week would do just as much to get people to vote.

Well, if the time limit remains, the idea in the quote below should at least happen. This alone would solve the problem from people who still don't vote the way you suggested. 

[SIZE= inherit]Anyone who wishes to abstain would not count in the 60%. So, if 5 people out of 19 wish to abstain, only 8 people need to vote for a proposal in order for it to pass.[/SIZE]

This could be the same for inactive people. If this were the case, inactive would have to have a definition. 


Not active in Story Mode for x amount of time wouldn't be a very good definition because proposals might not happen during that time.


But not voting in proposals also might not be a very good definition because I don't imagine everyone will listen to your suggestion in the first quote of this post.


Hmmm.....

 

[Dugym]

Anyone who is inactive or wishes to abstain would not count in the 60%. So, if 5 people out of 19 wish to abstain, only 8 people need to vote for a proposal in order for it to pass.

What do you think about this, @White Masquerade?


This would require:

• A foolproof definition for 'inactive'
  
• Making a mandatory post stating your wish to abstain
  

This would also eliminate the need to kick people out of the group, which is a great thing to avoid.

 

[White Masquerade]

If they need more information, they can ask. Also, I can understand the guilt stance, but if enough people abstain, then it doesn't pass, because not enough people voted for it.


We need some way to fix the voting system. I say remove the two week limit and a proposal will close once everyone votes. That gives people plenty of time to gather whatever they need.

No go. Apfel is correct on the 1st sentence. Getting someone to vote, does not automatically mean a vote in you favor. Instead of seeing 4 people voting with 2 yes and 2 no, you might see 20 people voted with 2 yes and 18 no. You will probably see that. Simply put, if someone likes your idea enough, they will vote yes on it. The only issue is them not seeing the proposal to begin with. That can be fixed easily by tags at the start of a proposal. Even then, there will still be people not moved enough to vote. I am in contact with a few members here regularly and they are indeed active and watching. They may not say anything in the open, but they are certainly around.


The job falls onto the proposer to be convincing enough to get the required votes. Forcing people to vote is not a direction to go in. Uninterested users should and will be tossed from the group, but for someone who is interested, they have the right to do as they please with their vote. Two weeks is enough time to showcase a proposal to everybody. If they haven't voted on it by then, then it's clear they're not into the idea.

I think that since voting isn't a commitment to the project, you should vote in favor of such things.

In my honest opinion, this is not good to do. If you're serious about an idea and could see it getting done or really like where it can head, that's when you vote yes. Anything less, and in a sense, it can be said that you're lying. It's better to stay out of it, than give a vote for "pity." If on some level, you have your reserves about an idea, why support it? It comes out to a "fake" vote. It's more helpful to be firm on one side or the other, or stay away from the idea as whole. Your vote is very a important representation of your opinion. Don't throw it so lightly =)

Anyone who wishes to abstain would not count in the 60%. So, if 5 people out of 19 wish to abstain, only 8 people need to vote for a proposal in order for it to pass.

No to this. It's a clever way of getting something passed without dealing with all of us. This is a group, and every single member will matter and count. Abstaining will be recognized for exactly what it is: they weren't interested enough in the idea to swing one way or the other.


What I'd ask help for in, is to point out who may no longer be interested in the group. I will not exclude the votes of anybody, but have no issue removing those who are not active or interested in being here.

 

[Dugym]

No to this. It's a clever way of getting something passed without dealing with all of us. This is a group, and every single member will matter and count. Abstaining will be recognized for exactly what it is: they weren't interested enough in the idea to swing one way or the other.

@White Masquerade


It's not bad at all. Even if a proposal passes, you said yourself not everyone has to participate in it.


Abstaining is impeding progress and ruining the point of this group, but I agree people should have the right to do it. It's not bad at all for abstaining to not count. If you abstain, you don't care what happens. Therefore, abstaining not counting doesn't make a difference to the individual. It's not even comparable to not counting someone's vote, which would be wrong.


Imagine if the U.S. Congress worked like this. 60% of Congress has to approve a proposal for it to pass. If people abstained like they did in this group, the U.S. would make progress at a sloth's pace! Woman might still not be able to vote, black people might still have few rights, etc... There is clearly a problem with this system.


If someone isn't interested enough in the idea to swing one way or the other, why should they be able to influence the outcome? That's not fair. In the U.S., people who don't vote for a candidate don't influence who the president is. That's fair.

 

[Dugym]

Like I said, this is not politics.  Let's stop comparing Story Mode to the US government, please.

[SIZE= 1.3rem]I'm just giving a real world example of Story Mode.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 1.3rem]"Having a definite policy or system of government" is one of the definitions of political, and "[/SIZE][SIZE= 1.3rem]the science or art of political government" is the definition of politics.[/SIZE]


Story Mode has a definite policy and system of government. Even RpN has that. Therefore, it is politics.


Anyway, saying "this is not politics" seems like your way to stop my argument from making a difference because you can't make a counter-argument. Also, why should discussion about group changes be stopped (which is what you seem to want)? That's dictatorship, which is clearly not what White wants.

This is a group, and every single member will matter and count.

 

[Dugym]

Anyway, let's get back to the point.

@White Masquerade


It's not bad at all. Even if a proposal passes, you said yourself not everyone has to participate in it.


Abstaining is impeding progress and ruining the point of this group, but I agree people should have the right to do it. It's not bad at all for abstaining to not count. If you abstain, you don't care what happens. Therefore, abstaining not counting doesn't make a difference to the individual. It's not even comparable to not counting someone's vote, which would be wrong.


Imagine if the U.S. Congress worked like this. 60% of Congress has to approve a proposal for it to pass. If people abstained like they did in this group, the U.S. would make progress at a sloth's pace! Woman might still not be able to vote, black people might still have few rights, etc... There is clearly a problem with this system.


If someone isn't interested enough in the idea to swing one way or the other, why should they be able to influence the outcome? That's not fair. In the U.S., people who don't vote for a candidate don't influence who the president is. That's fair.

 

[Grey]

Your argument would probably have more traction if it wasn't transparently an effort to ensure more support for your own proposals, and one of those is transparently an effort to get Story Mode members to do uncompensated writing and design work for you.  Which does seem genuinely at odds with Story Mode's stated purpose, and kind of not cool.


I'm not sure your argumentative style is doing you any favours, either.

 

[ApfelSeine]

In my honest opinion, this is not good to do. If you're serious about an idea and could see it getting done or really like where it can head, that's when you vote yes. Anything less, and in a sense, it can be said that you're lying. It's better to stay out of it, than give a vote for "pity." If on some level, you have your reserves about an idea, why support it? It comes out to a "fake" vote. It's more helpful to be firm on one side or the other, or stay away from the idea as whole. Your vote is very a important representation of your opinion. Don't throw it so lightly =)

I was referring more to the state of thinking that something is a good idea, but not being able to participate in it. Either becsuase of skill or time constraints. I think in this state, one should vote 'yes', because it will be a worthwhile project even if one can't participate in it. After all, approval and commitment are different things.


I'm usually very active in pursuing understanding when I'm confused, so my choice to abstain generally refers to being on the fence. I take note of what the projects goals are and how other people are responding to the idea. If I can't see a way to contribute, but it's still a popular idea, my stance is to not stand in the way of progress. To that end, I vote yes on things that I don't think I'll be very helpful for. That said, if I abstain until the end of voting, it's my version of a soft "no". (Basically, I dislike giving concrete nos since can't be taken back, but I will vote yes if I think others are passionate about a project that I may not fully understand.) So I wholeheartedly agree with you that voting should not be forced, and that the criteria to pass ideas should not be altered. I'm comfortable with the system as is, but it is a worthwhile discussion to nevertheless.

@White Masquerade


It's not bad at all. Even if a proposal passes, you said yourself not everyone has to participate in it.


Abstaining is impeding progress and ruining the point of this group, but I agree people should have the right to do it. It's not bad at all for abstaining to not count. If you abstain, you don't care what happens. Therefore, abstaining not counting doesn't make a difference to the individual. It's not even comparable to not counting someone's vote, which would be wrong.


Imagine if the U.S. Congress worked like this. 60% of Congress has to approve a proposal for it to pass. If people abstained like they did in this group, the U.S. would make progress at a sloth's pace! Woman might still not be able to vote, black people might still have few rights, etc... There is clearly a problem with this system.


If someone isn't interested enough in the idea to swing one way or the other, why should they be able to influence the outcome? That's not fair. In the U.S., people who don't vote for a candidate don't influence who the president is. That's fair.

I do not think your analogy is fitting of the situation, but putting that aside, I understand why you're frustrated with people abstaining from voting. Yet as I stated earlier, abstaining for me means a soft no. I'd likely be more firm in choosing one if my decision to abstain meant that my opinion did not count, but that would simply make me decide to be quicker to shoot down ideas that I'm uncertain about. I feel more comfortable not having to say no definitively, but I'd like the projects proposed to be things which people are interested in actually engaging in. If a proposal is something that people will try to get done, then it will hit the required number of votes. It's done so in the past and will in the future.


The decision to abstain is not exactly apathy. It's feeling that more information is needed, or it may be that people do not wish to shoot down the idea, but also don't support it. It isn't impeding the process because those who abstain would not do so if they felt the project was worthwhile (assuming they're aware that the proposal was made). I think that people resent being forced into a decision, or feel badly about voting no. Unlike the political system, to abstain is an equally valid opinion in how worthwhile it is to pursue the project. If they abstain, they clearly are not convinced one way or the other, which in general would be a no if you forced the vote anyways.

 

[Dugym]

Your argument would probably have more traction if it wasn't transparently an effort to ensure more support for your own proposals, and one of those is transparently an effort to get Story Mode members to do uncompensated writing and design work for you.  Which does seem genuinely at odds with Story Mode's stated purpose, and kind of not cool.


I'm not sure your argumentative style is doing you any favours, either.

Again, White said people don't have to participate.

 

[Dugym]

Also, before I respond to other posts, I'd like to make another point. The current system trends towards thinking such as: "My proposal won't pass, so why should I even make one? I might as well ask people/friends for help in a PM or a discussion thread."


Exactly what I was thinking, in fact. You complained about not getting enough proposals. Want more? Make it more plausible that they actually pass. It's like how socialism encourages people not to work. This system encourages people not to make proposals.

 

[ApfelSeine]

I don't think that the majority of people feel that they can't get a proposal passed. Rather, I think they just don't have any ideas (or want to get those ideas really solid before putting them forward). That's at least the case for me, but I don't think I'm alone in that. We've done a couple projects already, and passed proposals before. We know it's possible to do, but I think we also have rather firm ideas of what is worthwhile to do. That differs from person to person, but overall we've gotten proposals passed and completed, and I think there is an understanding that a successful proposal should be something people feel passionate about or feel would be helpful to the site.