The first part I definitely agree with about top 3 for votes. I'm not quite sure about the staff+community vote averages since everyone can just vote, but let's give it a try and see what happens.
After discussion on the server,
A modified version of this idea has come up, comment if u like it more so or less then the one linked;
- Everyone votes for there top 3 people they want as staff
- Everyone takes the 100% total vote of their's and splits it however they want among their favorite 3 people.
Ex. I vote for persons A T and Q and i can give A 30% T 10% and Q 60%
- We then look at all the received votes and find the % of voters who currently are staff, lets call this value P...
- Next we avg the members votes and staff votes separately.
- Then multiply all the votes of the staff by value P (staff-voter participation rate as stated above)
- Next we take the new voting values from members and staff and average the 2 groups.
- Finally, since the new voting averages will not total 100, we convert them to %, based on the Ratio that a given person has to the collective total value of all voting averages return.
How does this sound? it gives staff a little more say in the matter, lessening the chance of a Veto, but if no staff are active but like 1, then it lets the community decide the next batch of staff that runs. Also staff generally know what all the staff job en tales and can tell if someone will clearly fail at it... which is why we would like to lessen a veto, as that can wined up pissing people off and starting issues most likely, if someone gets staff, arguments among people start, and they lose it.
Which is what nicks idea was to accomplish, but this leaves more control more fairly spread IMO.
Why don't we use use mixed member proportional or first transferable vote?..
step 1: 100% on yourself
step 2: nobody gets any advantage from your vote by being second
step 3: ???
step 4: stafid
(01-09-2015, 03:33 AM)LordDecapo Wrote: [ -> ]After discussion on the server,
A modified version of this idea has come up, comment if u like it more so or less then the one linked;
- Everyone votes for there top 3 people they want as staff
- Everyone takes the 100% total vote of their's and splits it however they want among their favorite 3 people.
Ex. I vote for persons A T and Q and i can give A 30% T 10% and Q 60%
- We then look at all the received votes and find the % of voters who currently are staff, lets call this value P...
- Next we avg the members votes and staff votes separately.
- Then multiply all the votes of the staff by value P (staff-voter participation rate as stated above)
- Next we take the new voting values from members and staff and average the 2 groups.
- Finally, since the new voting averages will not total 100, we convert them to %, based on the Ratio that a given person has to the collective total value of all voting averages return.
How does this sound? it gives staff a little more say in the matter, lessening the chance of a Veto, but if no staff are active but like 1, then it lets the community decide the next batch of staff that runs. Also staff generally know what all the staff job en tales and can tell if someone will clearly fail at it... which is why we would like to lessen a veto, as that can wined up pissing people off and starting issues most likely, if someone gets staff, arguments among people start, and they lose it.
Which is what nicks idea was to accomplish, but this leaves more control more fairly spread IMO.
I believe this proposition over complicates it.
But I'll most likely be the one who ends up being the counter of votes, I don't care if it complicates it xD
Considering people don't understand how to elect people as it is (go back and look at old votes - half of them are wrong somehow) - it does matter how complicated it is.
You can't count votes if no one knows how it works, and no one reads the voting threads as it is.
"Put your favorite 3 people" is comprehensible, simple, and representative without over-complicating it for the sole purpose (it seems) of jacking off to the numberz.