2019 Charter Revision

Announcements & discussion of CoE related issues.
Post Reply
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

2019 Charter Revision

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:20 am

Hello friends,

I feel there are a few items in our current Charter that are in need of revision. Below are my thoughts/suggestions. This topic is open to ALL forum members (not just Council Members), so please give any input you may have! Additionally, if you feel there are other areas of the Charter which need revision, please post your suggestions below.

ISSUE # 1
a) The Council shall be comprised of a maximum of 9 and a minimum of 7 members. The number of seats up for election each election shall be eight. The Chair is not up for election.
The Chair not being up for election is something carried forward from a previous version of the Charter in years past. This may be a good thing, as it allows a degree of continuity between the outbound Council and the inbound Council. Alternatively, perhaps all Council Members (including the Chair) should have to run for election each term. Thoughts?


ISSUE #2
b) Procedure: All candidates will be listed on the Council of Elrond forum. The Council shall appoint an independent non-Council member to maintain this list and monitor the votes.
I propose changing this language to:
b) Procedure: All candidates will be listed on the Council of Elrond forum. The Chairman will be responsible for organizing the election and creating the polling topic or delegating another willing Council member to complete this task. An independent non-Council member will be selected by the Council to audit the final vote results to ensure they are accurate.

ISSUE # 3
The duration of the Annual Rules Vote will be three weeks and will take place in June of each year.
I propose changing this language to the following to allow the ROC more flexibility and time needed to prepare the vote:
The duration of the Annual Rules Vote will be three weeks and voting will begin in June or July of each year.

ISSUE # 4
For each measure on the docket, there will be two voting options: the first option will be to maintain the status quo (no change); the second option will be to create a new errata, clarification, or rule as appropriate. In order for the status quo to be changed, the following must take place: no more than one third of Council member votes (33.3% of the electorate) or half of the total votes (50% of the community) cast are in favor of the status quo. Council Member votes are also tallied in the total (community) votes. Any individual member of the Council of Elrond forum may cast one vote. In the event there is reasonable doubt as to what the status quo is for a particular rule, two options will be presented and a simple majority from the community (including electorate votes) will determine the outcome.
Each measure which meets the requirements of a change in status quo will be announced by the Chair and take effect immediately.
The above language caused the ROC all kinds of problems last year during the 2018 ARV. Specifically, it was difficult to determine which ballot items should be given the "status quo" label and which should not. Ultimately, our acting ROC members chose to adopt an extremely conservative interpretation of "status quo" and only 3 of the 42 ballot items were given the status quo label. I propose eliminating the status quo language altogether. It is important to note that this language was meant to be a form of Checks and Balances. Of note, there are two "check-points" in our current procedures to prevent a new and inadvisable rule from being passed by a simple majority (i.e. imagine 20 new players to the game deciding the outcome of a very controversial rule change proposed by someone which could greatly disrupt the way our game has been played for many years). First, the ROC may use their judgement to simply not include a rule change submission on the docket, should they decide it is not necessary or that an outcome could be detrimental to the game. Second, the idea of "status quo" suggests that for long-established rules interpretations, should a change from the norm be voted in by the popular vote, the Council itself may "over-ride" this result if more than 1/3 of its members vote against the change. The idea here is "the Council knows best." Obviously, this isn't always true. However, in general, Council members should be a little more plugged in to what is going on with the game than your average forum member. I propose the following language in order to relieve this unnecessary burden on the ROC, while still attempting to maintain a second check-point in our system:
Any ballot item which passes the popular vote by a supermajority of 2/3 or more of all votes will be considered passed and an erratum or clarification as appropriate will be issued. Any ballot item which passes the popular vote by a simple majority of greater than 50% but less than 2/3 of all votes will be decided by tallying Council Member votes for that item. If more than 1/3 of Council Member votes are in opposition to the simple majority outcome, the ballot item will be considered null and void and no rule erratum or clarification will be issued. (Example: Option A receives 55% of the popular vote and 4 of 9 Council Members voted for Option B; this ballot item would be considered null and void).
The ROC will endeavor to limit the voting options for each ballot item to two. However, at their discretion, they may choose to include more than two options to be voted on. In the event there are more than two options provided, a single option must receive a simple majority of more than 50% of all votes to pass. In this case, 2/3 or more of Council Member votes must be in opposition to the simple majority in order to prevent passage. If 2/3 or more of Council Member votes are in favor of options that did not receive the simple majority, the ballot item will be considered null and void.
With the language proposed above, all ballot items would be treated equally and there would be no need for the ROC to label some ballot items as "status quo" items.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:16 pm

#1:
I would expect continuity to be helpful. Having overlap in terms aids this. If anything, I'd be more in favor of more overlapping terms than fewer, but obviously longer terms or more frequent voting wouldn't be ideal either.

#4:
The proposal would fail at the stated goal of preventing hordes of new players from deciding policy. But the current system is only minimally better, in that the hordes of new players need only have been around at the previous year's election to decide who sits on the Council. I would desire a better overall solution for preventing uninformed (however-well-intentioned) majorities from dominating policy. This might involving reinstating the initiative for judge certification, for example.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:41 pm

If only implementing disruptive rules changes would bring in hoards of new players.


On this note, there was concern in some other thread over new accounts voting, and then concern about new accounts being needed for MECCG players on other forums (eg Spanish players who are not active here).

It could make sense to just deal with the prophesized hoard of new players when it happens. Though,any vote manipulation should be able to be investigated and invalidated without preventing new players from implemeting errata if they are the majority (poor Cave-Dragon).

EDIT: I reviewed the charter,and it does say:
"If deemed necessary, the ROC may call for an ad hoc rules vote outside of the Annual Rules Vote. This will only be done after special consideration is given and when a rule change, erratum, or clarification is considered urgent."

But it doesn't really address vote fraud.


Also, doesn't say what happens when the Line of the Council is broken.

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by thorondor » Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:34 am

Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:16 pm
#1:
I would expect continuity to be helpful. Having overlap in terms aids this. If anything, I'd be more in favor of more overlapping terms than fewer, but obviously longer terms or more frequent voting wouldn't be ideal either.
I think it´s okay as it is, but support the direction as proposed by Theo.
Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:16 pm
#4:
The proposal would fail at the stated goal of preventing hordes of new players from deciding policy. But the current system is only minimally better, in that the hordes of new players need only have been around at the previous year's election to decide who sits on the Council. I would desire a better overall solution for preventing uninformed (however-well-intentioned) majorities from dominating policy. This might involving reinstating the initiative for judge certification, for example.
I dont see any sign of a horde of new MECCG players. How welcome this would be though! So for now the policy is fine as it is.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:35 pm

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm honestly not really worried about a "hoard of new players" causing any problems. As you guys have said.... it would be a good problem to have. :D
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:41 pm
But it doesn't really address vote fraud.
I personally approve and activate every newly registered account to the forum and we have had a very steady influx of about 6 new forum members per month over the past 2 years. I think anything way out of the ordinary would be easily detectable, certainly so upon investigation. I can check IP addresses as well if need be. For our community though, I really don't see this being a problem.
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:41 pm
EDIT: I reviewed the charter,and it does say:
"If deemed necessary, the ROC may call for an ad hoc rules vote outside of the Annual Rules Vote. This will only be done after special consideration is given and when a rule change, erratum, or clarification is considered urgent."
Indeed, good point. I authored this as an additional protection.
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:41 pm
Also, doesn't say what happens when the Line of the Council is broken.
I don't understand what you mean by this.


Regarding #1:
Theo and thorondor are the only 2 who have commented on this thus far. In absence of a specific suggestion to improve this, it will be left as-is. (Since some degree of continuity seems to be desired). On the other hand, if the Chairman does a good job and desires to serve another term on the Council, I would imagine it wouldn't be difficult for him to be re-elected as a Council Member for the subsequent term.

Regarding #4:
As stated above, I'm not all that worried about abuse taking place, but I do feel the Status Quo language needs to be removed and some other language needs to take its place, because this is too great of a burden on an already very busy ROC.

My intention is to put up a Charter Revision in the very near future. So continued input from now until then regarding the content for such a revision is greatly appreciated! :D

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by rezwits » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:24 pm

ISSUE #1

Absolutely a good thing. I can't see "handing things off" only taking a month or so. This would easily take 6 months, for any person with an active lifestyle.

ISSUE #2

Agreed.

ISSUE #3

I am also in favor of the July date. This allows, the first half of the year for people to go thru the "season" and perhaps have a good full 6 months to prepare all collected thoughts, and then enjoy, and then repeat...

ISSUE #4

Agreed.

[-me_wh-]-PM-ME-IF
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:35 pm

Hello friends,

These proposed amendments have been up for review now for 3 weeks (2 weeks of review required by the Charter).

I will very soon put Items #2, #3, and #4 up for a vote, which will last 1 week (per our Charter).

I will not include Item #1, as it seems the feedback has been to leave that as is.

So this is a final call for comments and suggestions before I put these up for a vote. Please chime in if you have something to say! :D

Yours,

Gavin

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1628
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:45 am

In general, I am in favour of a) not changing the charter much/often, as that seems weak and/or CoE just uses it to serve their purposes,
and b) not being too specific in the charter, for example with respect to dates time-frames etc.

that being said, the proposed changes are minor, which is both ok and not in line with principle a) mentioned above 8)

# 1. Fine as is.
# 2. Don't see any major added value. CoE includes chairman, he can just propose in CoE to take charge and if agreed he can proceed.
# 3. 3 weeks is good. I would start in September. Summertime people are away. Worlds is usually in autumn (though sometimes in September).
# 4. Agreed. As I said often before, 'status quo' IIRC referred to 'no change', rather than 'commonly accepted way to play,' since the latter is hard to determine. This procedure seems clear. I would use 67% rather than 2/3, and qualified majority rather than super majority.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: 2019 Charter Revision

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:11 am

Thanks for your input Thorsten!
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:45 am
# 2. Don't see any major added value. CoE includes chairman, he can just propose in CoE to take charge and if agreed he can proceed.
The idea here I believe was to ensure someone separated from the Council itself was authenticating the votes, just to ensure no foul play was taking place (even though I acknowledge that would be extremely unlikely). Since it was much easier for me to create the polling topic myself, the proposed language change allows me (or acting Chairman or designee) to orchestrate all of the vote for the new Council, while simply having a non-Council Member confirm the vote tallies are correct at the end.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:45 am
# 3. 3 weeks is good. I would start in September. Summertime people are away. Worlds is usually in autumn (though sometimes in September).
I believe the reason to initially hold the ARV in June was to ensure enough time prior to Worlds for participating members to be made aware of any new rules changes and modify their decks as necessary. Perhaps we could start the ARV in mid-August and run into September (2 weeks in August and 1 week in September).
This would allow "hopefully" 4-6 weeks for general awareness and deck changes to be made prior to Worlds.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:45 am
# 4. Agreed. As I said often before, 'status quo' IIRC referred to 'no change', rather than 'commonly accepted way to play,' since the latter is hard to determine. This procedure seems clear. I would use 67% rather than 2/3, and qualified majority rather than super majority.
Sounds good, I will make that change. Thank you.

I will be putting a Charter revision up to a vote in the very near future. Thanks to all for your input!

Post Reply

Return to “Town Hall”