• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Forum Improve Voting Choices in Ideas/Suggestions Forum

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
Edited to incorporate ideas presented in the ensuing discussion:

Include a third option in voting polls: Needs Work
A vote for 'needs work' would count as a 'not in favor' vote, eliminating the 'con' of revisiting the rules surrounding voting.



Original Post:
Include a third option in voting polls: Could use more work (credit to @Ashrem for the idea)

Background:
There have been at least 2 ideas that reached the voting stage before issues with those ideas were identified in the discussions. When faced with only yes/no voting options, ideas with merit have resulted in no recommendation for implementation. The current voting system means the idea must be restated in a new thread to receive further consideration.
Pros:
Provides alternative to yes/no votes
Allows same thread to continue with discussions after voting has ended, thus retaining all discussion points made
Cons:
May require revisiting the rules surrounding voting, specifically the proportion of votes required to recommend implementation
Could result in threads with many pages and hard to follow discussions. This in turn would require more work on the part of the originator of the idea to keep the original post updated with summaries of the salient points as well as more frequent refining of the statement of the idea to keep up with changes.
 
Last edited:

AtaguS

Well-Known Member
I like it!
I'd suggest getting specific with what the 3rd option is. Discussion in the previous thread led to a pretty solid concensus that "Needs Moer Work" was the favorite. EDIT: duh, see it now. Sorry...off to the coffee pot I go.
Love this idea, gets my vote :)
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
Potential issue: The current methodology is based on getting ten more yes votes than no votes. Adding a third option greatly increases the chance that ideas will not meet that threshold. It needs to be clear, does a "needs more work" vote count as a "no" or merely a way of abstaining while giving an opinion?

And what if people vote "needs more work:" and the idea passes, where it would not have passed if they voted "no"? They are likely to be irritated.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
Potential issue: The current methodology is based on getting ten more yes votes than no votes. Adding a third option greatly increases the chance that ideas will not meet that threshold. It needs to be clear, does a "needs more work" vote count as a "no" or merely a way of abstaining while giving an opinion?

And what if people vote "needs more work:" and the idea passes, where it would not have passed if they voted "no"? They are likely to be irritated.

That is for Xelenia to decide after the voting is done. She may feel that if a certain percentage of the votes are "needs more work", then it needs to be refined and the new version voted on. If something is lucky enough to get 50 votes and 10 of them are "needs more work", then I think that is enough to restart and work on the idea more before a second vote is taken. You could call those "no" votes if you want. Also, I think the "yes" votes should be a percentage of the total vote, not just 10 more than the "no" vote. 20 yes and 10 no tells me there are still issues with an idea. And 30 yes and 20 no looks even worse.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
That is for Xelenia to decide after the voting is done.
No it isn't. We need to know what our vote means in advance or there's going to be nothing but bad feelings.

Also, I think the "yes" votes should be a percentage of the total vote, not just 10 more than the "no" vote. 20 yes and 10 no tells me there are still issues with an idea. And 30 yes and 20 no looks even worse.
Xelenia's stated reason for doing things differently here was to actually get some ideas forwarded. Making it even harder than the original beta method is not going to accomplish that.
 

AtaguS

Well-Known Member
I think "needs more work" should count as a no.
Agreed. The 10 more than no votes can stay the same that way. If enough "Needs more work" votes show up to tip the scales to an overall no, that's good information...and doesn't have to be the end of the vote, just time for a rework. We sort of have an example of that with the Spell Fragment voting saga now. Hopefully in the end it means a final Yes vote wins out. So less room for bad feelings.
 

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
I agree the 'needs more work' votes should count as a no. I like @AtaguS explanation that there does not then need to be a revision of voting rules and that would address one of the cons of the proposal.
If I am in favor of an idea exactly as presented in the first post being sent as 'recommend implementation' I will vote yes. I voted 'no' on the 2 ideas I viewed as having merit because I was not in favor of the idea as presented being sent as 'recommend implementation'. The Spell Fragment voting saga AtaguS mentions is exactly that for me. If we're addressing Spell Fragments, fine. If we're addressing Spire Rewards, fine. But I am not going to vote yes for a suggestion that uses those words as if they're interchangeable. They're not.
I also agree with @Ashrem that it is only fair we know what our vote means when we cast it. If casting a 'needs more work' vote is as nebulous as 'someone somewhere else will decide what that means depending on how many other people vote the same', I do not view that as a viable option.
 

Xelenia

Ex-Team Member
it is only fair we know what our vote means when we cast it

I will have to agree with this statement.

Trueth be told, I am also lazy to decide the meaning of the votes once...it is voted on. I thought the Infavor and not infavor was very...straight forward with no ambiguity :oops:

Don't mind me, I am just trying to follow the thread without pressing the "watch" button :p
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
Missed this thread until now and I've got to chuckle at one aspect. It was @Ashrem's idea in another thread and now he's pointed out a potential pitfall. And it's a big one. I'm glad you pointed it out. It just gave me a little chuckle is all.
Cons:
May require revisiting the rules surrounding voting, specifically the proportion of votes required to recommend implementation
Could result in threads with many pages and hard to follow discussions. This in turn would require more work on the part of the originator of the idea to keep the original post updated with summaries of the salient points as well as more frequent refining of the statement of the idea to keep up with changes.
I can't think of a clearer way to have said that, but the 2nd con, sure sounds like it's saying "It could get messy if this change is made"

While the idea of a 3rd option sounds good to begin with, it does complicate the issue of what votes mean, perhaps to the point of breaking.
We sort of have an example of that with the Spell Fragment voting saga now.
The spell fragments may not be a good example to use. The guide says "When discussing, only focus on the current suggestion made by the Original Poster. If you have a separate idea or suggestion, open a separate discussion for that particular concept." Originally the thread was about using spire fragments to craft time instants in the MA. At some point it changed to the balance of spell fragments in the spire. That was an entirely different concept and should have become a different thread. It didn't. Yes, other problems came about due to wording, but the point is, it was no longer the OP's idea and that may have lead to the problems that followed.

When the vote is called for by the OP, the idea needs to be well formed and complete. That is the OP's function. If not, it fails. People can give their reasons why they are voting one way or another during the voting period if they wish and probably should. The OP may have the poll removed if it's seen to be flawed, but then that thread probably should soon be archived.

The proposal here keeps all the existing discussion. Not only do I think it wouldn't be all that helpful, it would also make it difficult for new people to join in the discussion. Having to read page after page of information, a lot of it being why is was considered to need more work and therefore no longer relevant would be confusing and not encourage participation. Also, a lot of the discussion probably settled a lot of the issues. So no, it seem to me it'd be better to start with a new and cleaner, clearer expression of the idea which incorporates the resolved issues. Starting with a clearer focus, should reduce the amount of repeated discussion needed. Perhaps the OP of the new thread (who could be the same OP as before), could immediately follow the initial post with info gleamed from the old thread including lessons learned and how this one solves those problems. That info should not be in the top post since that isn't relevant to the developers.

My bottom line is, I don't think a 3rd choice will solve anything and will just complicate the voting and what a vote means.
 

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
I can't think of a clearer way to have said that, but the 2nd con, sure sounds like it's saying "It could get messy if this change is made"

While the idea of a 3rd option sounds good to begin with, it does complicate the issue of what votes mean, perhaps to the point of breaking.
So no, it seem to me it'd be better to start with a new and cleaner, clearer expression of the idea which incorporates the resolved issues.
Now you've got me leaning towards a 'no' vote on my own proposal, lol!
Serious here, though. The last thing I'd want to see is threads of ideas that ramble for pages and pages. What I'd really like is for these initial discussions to take place in the 'General Discussions' section of the forum. That way an idea would be more refined by the time it got to this section of the forum. That would be hard to enforce, though, and rules saying to do it that way would also discourage new forum members from participating if they were looking around and saw a bunch of 'that doesn't belong here yet' posts to new members posting their ideas.

Not going to ask for a vote on this one unless someone has a point of view that changes my mind...again...
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
I don't see how these two things - starting a new thread, and adding a "needs work" vote - are mutually exclusive.

If the first vote fails, and the OP wants to try again, then it makes sense to resolve the issues and start a new thread. But the "needs more work" vote gives information to determine if that's worth doing. People who vote "no" aren't always clear in their comments about what is the dealbreaker for them. Ideally they would be, but ultimately it's helpful to know for sure how many voters oppose an idea, and how many oppose the implementation of that idea. The third voting option would clarify that, allowing the OP to decide if it's worth trying again.
 

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
I don't see how these two things - starting a new thread, and adding a "needs work" vote - are mutually exclusive.
I don't disagree with this either. Let it never be said that I'm inflexible, lol!
So, should part of this proposal be that an idea that fails is always archived once voting ends? And would we also need a rule that says 'after voting starts, it cannot be discontinued' to prevent what happened with that spell fragments thread?

I hate to keep bringing up that thread as I do think the idea has evolved into a much clearer one with merit @sam767 , but it is a good example of what happens when one of these threads gets so long it's hard to follow, especially for anyone new to the discussion.

So, the more I think on this, the more I think the idea is way more complicated than I originally thought. While I'm flexible, I feel like it's bordering on being wishy-washy now. I'll be watching my grandson tomorrow, so won't have much time on here. I'll come in and read when I can, but will just let things percolate in my brain until Sunday.
 
Last edited:

Xelenia

Ex-Team Member
Hello Everyone!

Given I am the "developer" in this case, aka...the person making 99.99% of the decision pertaining to this section, and 90% of the forum (for now), I decided I will chime in. You know...something different from the other processes where you do not hear from "developers"...(If the Goddesses and Gods are reading this, I am not taking any jabs...no really! I am )

I think you are all making this way more complicating than it needs to be, as I have seen occurred with previously proposed ideas, especially since I am right here to steal the idea and run with it. :p

For transparency purposes, this is something I was considering after I came back from my sickly/vacation time from the forum. The reason being, I have noticed some ideas are very muddy, but rather than me directing the discussions ( as I have previously ), I was thinking of providing an additional choice. I am betting that voters will hopefully make the sound decision on their own and say, "this idea presentation simply sucks, go back to the drawing board even though I like the concept."

The reason I am choosing not to direct the discussions is that it has been brought to my attention that my constant chimes into the suggestions tend to sway/influence the outcome of the conversation too much and thus discourage further ideas/suggestions. Which, I do believe, is a valid criticism because that is not what I want! Therefore, I figured I would keep things simple and let the process I have put in place take its course. (This does not mean if I still see whining/complaints / hateful messages disguise as suggestions, that I will turn a blind eye ... spoiler alert, I will archive it if not downright delete).

A third option of "go back to the drawing board," in my mind, is a "no," the exception being "I am willing to partake in the discussion to make it better." Thus, with the process I have laid out of 10 MORE in favor, will simply come out to 10 more than the total of the other two voting results.
Example: 30 in favor, 20 no, and 5 go back to the drawing board, will simply not be forwarded because clearly, 25 people do not strongly agree with the suggestion. If you have read the process I have laid in place, you will notice this line, and I believe it remains true:

Any idea that does not meet the requirement of the poll will not be forward. This will avoid forwarding ideas that are not supported by the majority of the community.

As you can see, I am only interested in ideas that are supported broadly and rather than requiring a difference of 15/20/30...I felt 10 will still suffice as not to discourage people.

One reason I have been indecisive is actually because of this:

I don't think a 3rd choice will solve anything and will just complicate the voting and what a vote means.

As nicely explained by Yogi Dave in the whole text. As an O.P. if you are genuinely interested in having your voice heard, along with that of your fellow game mates, I feel you should put in the effort to make things as clear as possible in addition to actually coming up with an actual suggestion, and do not worry too much about all the nitty-gritty things (such as making rules for archiving), simply focus on that third option that will allow you, as a player and an active member of this forum, for your voice to be heard.... (Within reason).

I, being the moderator, have a preference for making my job here more leisurely every day. Another spoiler alert, I will always choose the option that will make it easier (while keeping you guys in mind, of course, after all, it is your community :) ).

And I will strongly suggest taking that same attitude when making suggestions for the developers. Remember, you do not have full control over all the nitty-gritty details; the developers do. What you can influence, though, are conceptions and the future of the game. Think of yourselves as muses :p

So, should part of this proposal be that an idea that fails is always archived once voting ends?

An idea I am STEALING though is archiving threads that do not make it through the voting process. I will leave a redirect link for maybe a week to allow the O.P. the opportunity to grab the link if they so wish to do so, and add it to the new discussion. This will avoid clutters, especially for ideas that are talked about for endless pages.


P.S.

What I'd really like is for these initial discussions to take place in the 'General Discussions' section of the forum. That way an idea would be more refined by the time it got to this section of the forum.

I entirely and UTTERLY prefer this! Like, you have no idea how much I prefer this! Lmao But alas, I can only dream... :(
 
Top