Data Implementation of the ASB Council (COUNCIL ANNOUNCED)

[Stratos]

goddammit orc rant when I'm awake next time ok

I am highly offended that you would personally attack me over my creation of a social group to discuss the ASB council. The social group was created so as to have a medium where we can discuss the implementation of the council without arguments as to its usefulness (which would remain confined to the forum thread), NOT to be elitist. And I have never yet used my moderation powers to reject someone from the group. If I do, it will be for one purpose and one purpose only and that purpose will be that they have not posted an ASB profile. If you want, you can join the social group right now and I will accept you - and this goes for anyone reading this thread. Furthermore, you'll notice that you do not have to be a member of the group to see its contents. I am not trying to be elitist in any way here.

As for how the council will be picked - well, we don't know yet. that's what the group is trying to decide. and before anyone accuses me of being non-transparent, a liar, etc, here's the group. It's also been linked in the #capasb channel topic since this thread went up

 

[Gemini Taurus]

Okay, I do not plan on signing up for this at all nor do I think I'd have any chance of making the council :P. However the one suggestion I do have is this: Do not make all of the council members "ASB vets." Have at least one member who is newer to give a fresher and different look on things. This ensures that everyone is represented fairly (I.E. no one can argue that the "vets" or the "newbies" are unrepresented.) And we have as many different perspectives as possible!

 

[Pallas Athena]

To answer a few questions on why a council is needed:

This ASB league is almost done in development. But, it still needs active leadership to keep in going. Let's remember the direct stimulus for this shall we. While the gym league's creation and operating mechanisms are good, they depended upon a small group of people being highly active and devoted enough to get things done. They didn't, and there was no effective means to replace them.

Now, let's also think over RP's. Multiple times, particularly with the Subway, Pike, and Hall, the leadership of these has changed hands due to inactivity. Oftentimes, this was after a long period of festering due to no intervention from the top. If an actual council of vocal members existed, these would be put under new management far faster and the RP would continue to exist at a high quality.

While direct rulings will probably be less frequent, consider that at any given time there are usually 2-3 unresolved inquiries in the Discussion thread, some of them even gaining widespread consensus. But, they often take weeks to get passed if they are acted upon at all.

Strong, active leadership is entirely beneficial to the league. There are four possible ways to manage it, which I will outline below.

1) Moderator/Moderator Council
2) Player Council
3) Democracy
4) User-founded movements

The first has already been shown to fail. We have a fairly limited number of moderators who play ASB, cutting the potential for this down dramatically and excluding many of our best players. Additionally, one moderator will inevitably lead to decisions that may not represent the playerbase, and long periods of inactivity that force the league into an awkward position. A council of three moderators (or any three people) is also flawed. If one moderator is particularly vocal, and the other two are inactive or apathetic, dictatorship with the illusion of democracy is created. I do not believe we wish to explore this option

Democracy is stupid. Any sort of democracy would be horribly inefficient, not to mention the logistics of it. How would discussions be nominated for a vote? How long should votes be open? What options would there be on the vote? Not to mention, how would voting requirements be determined? People are stupid in large groups, and I have no desire to see any sort of pure democracy. This leaves two options

User-based initiative is a system that ultimately resolved a few of the problems I outlined. This involves a few loose "authority figures" with inidividual users stepping up to take on challenges like inactive RP's and such. This system is also doomed to fail on its own. It provides no means of making changes to the game, no real way of selecting councils or running gyms, and most crucially makes everything slow down as people question if they have the authority to do something. I do not believe this system of management would be healthy either.

This leaves a council of some sort. Under this there are two groups: permanent and rotating.

A rotating council is generally bad. There needs to be some sort of archleader to manage the rotations, councilmen can't actually have enough time to get into the swing of things, and there's just too much change and chaos. We used to do it, the system was disbanded.

I'm not saying that a permanent council doesn't have its flaws. It would be somewhat hard to remove people, players might get arrogant in charge, and there will inevitably be people who say "Why not me?" and get upset. But, I think people overlook just who will be on the council. If the process works, the people on it will be users who the community trusts. It's very easy to complain about "People will go power crazy!!!!" when you think of the council as anonymous figures of power. It's less easy to picture corruption becoming an issue when you think of Engineer Pikachu, IAR, or dogfish44.

If a strong and active leadership is beneficial to the league, I recognize that a permanent or semi-permanent council is the best way to do it. There will be issues, and these issues should be discussed. But that is no reason to give up on the idea in general.

 

[Deck Knight]

Just dropping in for a brief post saying that I did approve of this mechanism for real and I think it's a much better solution than randomly tracking me down for a hotfix.

I think the game is now balanced enough to the point where it fulfills the goals I set out for it on a basic level. There are still imperfections, there are still things left to do, but I'm increasingly focusing more on those and not differentiating as well between high priority and low priority needs - to do that I'd need to be more active and focused on the game, and I'm simply not.

Moreover I never had any desire to be some kind of emperor for life over the game. I had so many problems with the leadership of the first ASB I was part of over a decade ago that I decided if I ever did make an ASB, I'd set it up so that it wasn't always the same people who had seemingly infinite arbitrary powers over the game or other avenues that I've basically either removed through the system itself (an extremely objective and refined system for calculating damage for ex. so there aren't many biased reffing issues) or through taking a stand on something until I can put a better model in place.

In any case, the key aspects of the council will be that it is uncompensated and should have some mechanism for slow changes. If the council members are failing to meet the three criteria they should be removed and someone else selected. Things like that. The only other real "rule" is not to do something so drastic that it would make me seriously want to consider hunting the council members down. This is basically "apply common sense" - since I want the council to move forward, but notify - otherwise there's no real change from how things have been operating, and that operating system has not been doing well for the game as a whole.

Deck Knight out.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

22:01 orcinus @ all: I cede my arguments against the council.


The aim of the Anime Style Battling Council is to rationally, quickly and efficiently judge and implement proposed for ASB by the larger ASB Community. It aims to build upon, not revert, the existing spirit of ASB by approving proposals that strengthens the mechanics of the game. The ASB Council recognizes that changes are made only to fix an existing flaw in existing mechanics, or to make incremental improvements by way of small inclusions.

CHAPTER I: Selecting the Council

1. All council members are selected by a vote by the eligible ASB community, and
   • The eligible ASB community is defined as the users who have had no less than one month experience in ASB and have finished no less than two battles in that time without a DQ elimination.
   • The vote is private, and will be sent to the standing chairman of the council via PM.
   • This voting will take place every six months, which will be the term of a council, and there are no restrictions on any user serving on consecutive councils.
   • The five people who have achieved the most amount of votes from the community will be selected to be seated on the council.
2. There will be five council members elected, and
   • They may step down voluntarily at any point during their term.
   • If at any time there are four users in the council, the council will decide among themselves via a vote who the replacement user will be, and the decision will be carried out in an efficient and timely manner.
3. There will be one chairman of the council, and
   • This user may not be on the council, but will be chosen by a council vote.
   • Will facilitate the running of the council in any ways necessary, including calling meetings and running voting processes.
   • Will report to Deck_Knight on any changes implemented.
4. Council members have a moderated but public social group that consists of the five council members and the standing chairman.
5. At any time, a member of the council or the chairman may call a vote of no confidence (or of inactivity) regarding a fellow council member, and the four members of the council and the chairman will engage a private vote regarding the member’s involvement in the council, and if and only if there are no votes cast for keeping the council member, that user is ejected from the council.

CHAPTER II: System Changes

1. If a proposed change to the ASB system gains considerable support, be it on IRC or the Feedback thread, the council may make a decision on its implementation, under the following guidelines:
   • The proposal must be at least a week old before the council begins council discussion and voting on the proposal, so as to give all users a chance to respond to the proposal.
   • After the time has passed and the community response to the proposed change is still positive, the council may begin private discussion and voting process.
   • If the vote passes, the change is considered implemented in any way the council decrees, so long as there is no veto present from a relevant power.
2. Proposals that lie within the council’s control include changes to specific moves, abilities, items, minor changes to game mechanics, and any major change to the game’s mechanics must also obtain a public approval from Deck_Knight, such major proposals including but not limited to,
   • Changes to how damage is calculated, or to the concept of the battle system as a whole.
   • Inclusion of a mechanic that lies outside of the existing spirit and ruleset of ASB.
3. Voting takes place through the following process:
   • Satisfying guidelines for a proposal, a member of the council creates two new threads for the proposal, one titled DISCUSSION and the other VOTING, outlining the exact proposal verbatim in the Original Post of both threads, in the Council Social Group.
   • The council may discuss among themselves on IRC or on the discussion thread in the Council Social Group, at all times taking into account feedback from non-Council members.
   • The council will in due time publically vote in the voting thread created for that proposal, with no less than a paragraph of justification for their vote.
   • If the proposed change receives a majority vote from the council, it is considered implemented and the change announced in all relevant areas.

CHAPTER III: Regarding Other Entities

1. The Gym committee and the Roleplay committee hold complete sovereignty from the ASB Council; however, if either committee is overly inactive or otherwise incompetent, the council may take any actions deemed necessary to expedite the duties of the committee, be it through selecting replacements or by taking charge of the committee entirely.
2. Deck_Knight holds ultimate veto power over any action that the Council takes, and continues to operate as Word of God.

 

[ZhengTann]

Orci raises valid concerns. It's easy, when people defer to you and you have near-absolute authority, to turn arrogant. It's easy, when you're gunning for that position, to turn bitterly sour when you fail. So we need to keep each other in check as a community - should anyone slips by the wheel, it's our job, as friends (?) in ASB to get them back on track. I have to agree with Obj, Atheno, and Red in particular that right now, total democracy is not a good idea - only equaling total anarchy on all levels. But I hope whoever secures the vaunted position of a CAP ASB Council member realises that, for all the standing they have, it's not going to last (just look at DK, even God himself will have to leave in time). CAP ASB should not fall when its current pillars leave - there should be more instead ready to be in place, moving it forward and keeping it strong while anyone could shelter in their halls.

That said, I tentatively support the constitution Orci put forth - it is a solid basis for future reference, even though there are some points where I might disagree with him, at a glance. Also, SubwayJ raises a good point as well - we might not need a new guy in the CAP ASB Council, but we definitely need to take steps to ensure that any intelligent argument put forth will be given due consideration (by the Council and the Community) regardless whence it came from.

 

[Objection]

That said, I tentatively support the constitution Orci put forth - it is a solid basis for future reference, even though there are some points where I might disagree with him, at a glance. Also, SubwayJ raises a good point as well - we might not need a new guy in the CAP ASB Council, but we definitely need to take steps to ensure that any intelligent argument put forth will be given due consideration (by the Council and the Community) regardless whence it came from.

Like I said earlier, disregarding intelligent arguments put forth by the community is shitty leadership, so I would assume that the council members would actually consider any such arguments that they witness. If it's not safe to assume that, I'm sure Orcinus can add it to his constitution (which by the way me likey) somewhere.

EDIT: Actually, it's already in Orcinus' constitution. Chapter 2, section 3, subsection b.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

After speaking with numerous people, the general reception to orcinus's constitution has been positive. There have been a few small objections to specific components of the constitution; however, everyone I spoke to agreed that it was a solid base that covered the necessary facets of the council.

As such, Orcinu's constitution will be tentatively accepted as the guideline for council selection and procedures.

Therefore, I, acting as the chairman for the initial selection, am placing a 72 hour limit from the time of this post on any applications to the ASB Council.

At that point there will be a 3 day voting period, at which point the first ASB Council will be named, and can begin operations.



In addition, I would like anyone reading this post to state whether they would prefer a 5 or 7 member council. Majority will rule.

I support 5 members.

 

[Stratos]

definitely 5 members

 

[AOPSUser]

Five is the optimal number.

 

[MK Ultra]

Evening all.
I've been here since ASB's first month and have been active - if in different ways - since. As a battler I was the runner-up in the first tourney and I feel I have more than enough experience and expertise to offer. While I no longer regularly battle I am on IRC practically every day and my status there shows I can be trusted with authority and to solve disputes. I have been a member of the Gym Committee since its founding and have, with some help from a few others, got the first gyms running smoothly and am currently going through putting up the second set. My role there has given me experience in balancing and making decisions, as has my role as the (joint) head of the Battle Hall.

Vote MK~
Thank you campaign manager Pwnemon:
<Pwnemon> you need a catchy phrase mk
<Pwnemon> like "DON'T BE A GAY, VOTE MK"

And I support 7 counsellors - we have more than enough experienced players to make 7 a viable number and it seems to me a good balance of having the possibility for differing opinions without getting bogged down in waiting for too many people.

 

[C$FP]

And I support 7 counsellors - we have more than enough experienced players to make 7 a viable number and it seems to me a good balance of having the possibility for differing opinions without getting bogged down in waiting for too many people.

this

EDIT: I mean, I would willingly accept 5; I just would like to hear a bit more reasoning as to why it's better than 7 given the validity of the above quote.

 

[jas61292]

Woah there guys, hold on a sec. I don't want to be contrary just for the hell of it, and for the most part I like the idea of this constitution, but to simply say go ahead and act as if it is law less that 5 hours after it is posted is ridiculous. If there are "...a few small objections to specific components of the constitution" as Texas says, those should be taken care of before anything else.

Of even greater concern to me is on what authority this constitution is being passed. I know Deck Knight wants to pass leadership off to a council, but nothing like this constitution was ever talked about. If Deck wants to come in as active leader and monarch of CAP ASB and ratify this constitution, then that is OK, but otherwise, I think we need a vote from the players before anything such as this is put into action.

Electing a council right now under this constitution is absurd. What we should be doing instead is:

1. Discuss the constitution, making small changes as necessary to deal with people's concerns.
2. Ratify the constitution, either via public vote, or via acceptance by the current leadership, Deck Knight
3. Elect the council.

Now, to be clear, I do not personally have any major concerns with anything in the constitution. However, we are rushing into this way too fast. Implementing such a constitution without even waiting 24 hours to see if the community accepts it is just preposterous.

 

[Son_of_Shadoo]

And I support 7 counsellors - we have more than enough experienced players to make 7 a viable number and it seems to me a good balance of having the possibility for differing opinions without getting bogged down in waiting for too many people.

I also support this proposal. Pretty much the only issue I would have with Orc's constitution.

Okay, I do not plan on signing up for this at all nor do I think I'd have any chance of making the council :P. However the one suggestion I do have is this: Do not make all of the council members "ASB vets." Have at least one member who is newer to give a fresher and different look on things. This ensures that everyone is represented fairly (I.E. no one can argue that the "vets" or the "newbies" are unrepresented.) And we have as many different perspectives as possible!

And I want to address this as a blatantly stupid idea. The council should be made of the players who understand the game and playerbase best, and in most cases, this will also include those who have the most skill and experience. I like to think the best candidates are reasonable people who are actually capable of representing everyone, and Vets/Newbies shouldn't come into it, and if it does, then there's something very wrong. With a council of 7, there will be a range of people with different perspectives and ideologies anyway, so your different perspectives comment is fulfilled anyway.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Well jas, as you may have noticed I said that it was tentatively accepted, and by that I mean use it to get the ball rolling. As it stands, we currently still have the leadership void, set to be filled by the council. As I then envision it, we should elect the council as soon as possible (currently set to be roughly a week from now), and at that point we can then finalize all facets of the constitution.

When I said "...a few small objections to specific components of the constitution," this was referring to concerns brought up by individuals who i then spoke to about their concerns. One concern was the process of voting, concerns which I allayed. Another concern was the number of councilmen, presently being dealt with. Another concern was the autonomy of the gym and rp committees, a topic best addressed after the selection of the council.

As you can see, this constitution has yet to be "signed into law" but has received enough positive support with zero negative support to be used as a guideline for proceeding.



On 5 vs 7

I support 5 members because it allows the council to quickly and effectively make decisions without being bogged down by lag in waiting for multiple members. It also makes it easier to centralize power and to monitor activity among those members. With 7 members, constant activity becomes harder to maintain as a group as compared to 5. Furthermore, the matters that the council will be dealing with will oftentimes be smaller matters, and thus better suited to a faster, leaner council than to a larger, more bloated on. The OU council is a good example of when 5 members works well.

Speaking from experience from the 7 man RU council, activity becomes more difficult to maintain. If I recall correctly, since its institution at the beginning of March or so, we have had 4 changeovers due to lessening activity or waning interest in the tier. This requires a change on average every 2 months. As people have said we have no shortage of capable members to fulfill these positions. Therefore should someone abdicate tehir position in a 5 man council there should be no issue replacing them with a capable member.

Finally, 5 man councils also foster improved group dynamics and are easier for a chairman to maintain as a whole.

 

[Ragnarokalex]

I personally agree that 7 members are too large. However, three is also too small and leads to situations like the one Objection described. 5 members I believe to be optimal, much like how the OU council presently functions.





I am not sure how you can ask for more concrete details than this. The ASB Council will in essence become the new head of decisions with ASB. It is no longer effective for ASB to remain autocratic with Deck having all the power and the Council, having consistent high activity, will become the new guiding force.

I am not sure that you along with a couple of other users are aware of the need for solid direction and decision making that isn't hamstrung by inactivity. This isn't about being a clique, this about the direction, health and progression of ASB as a whole.

I full agree that a council like would be a good idea for the betterment of the ASB as a whole, but i also see that things are already quite "cliquey" and there are a large amount of superiority problems, and I am just worried that these problems are going to be worsened by such a council, I'm not saying that something like this shouldn't happen, far from it, I think this is important. But I am just worried about how others will be treated since it hasn't been an issue thats been largely addressed in the past. I would just like to make sure that issues such as this will see some attention.

 

[Elevator Music]

As someone who has taken part in a lot of council like voting and general decision making, 5 is better for 7, especially for this community (which is relatively small).

 

[MK Ultra]

On 5 vs 7

I support 5 members because it allows the council to quickly and effectively make decisions without being bogged down by lag in waiting for multiple members. It also makes it easier to centralize power and to monitor activity among those members. With 7 members, constant activity becomes harder to maintain as a group as compared to 5. Furthermore, the matters that the council will be dealing with will oftentimes be smaller matters, and thus better suited to a faster, leaner council than to a larger, more bloated on. The OU council is a good example of when 5 members works well.

Speaking from experience from the 7 man RU council, activity becomes more difficult to maintain. If I recall correctly, since its institution at the beginning of March or so, we have had 4 changeovers due to lessening activity or waning interest in the tier. This requires a change on average every 2 months. As people have said we have no shortage of capable members to fulfill these positions. Therefore should someone abdicate tehir position in a 5 man council there should be no issue replacing them with a capable member.

Finally, 5 man councils also foster improved group dynamics and are easier for a chairman to maintain as a whole.

I think 7 won't get bogged down as long as we don't require every councillor to have his voice heard - if four vote a certain way there is no need to hear from the other three.
Activity in ASB is strong as is - with something like Pokemon people are far more likely to drift in and out of, whereas ASBers, especially those in the running for the council, have often been here for a long time and very few consider leaving.
I also think ASB has a great group dynamic anyway, fostered by the irc channel - it's far more open and far less imposing than pokemon irc channels or showdown/po chats and most people get on without any notable rivalries or dislikes between users, so dynamic and maintenance should be no easier to keep in a five-person than seven-person council for a community such as ours.

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

Experiance should not matter; understanding should.
If there is a person who understands the rules and yet has not been around for a long time, they should be on the council. In fact, that person is perfect for the role since they have a mind more open to change. I don't think veteran or newbie are useful concepts at all, but diversity is.

 

[Gemini Taurus]

@ SoS: I think you misunderstood what I meant by newer (although I didn't explain it too well). When I say "newer" I don't mean someone who's been around for a single month, I meant someone who's been around for a while but not since the inception of ASB (someone around my newness I meant) (but don't pick me as I am completely ineligible). So I'm sorry I made that unclear, I just meant pick at least one person who hasn't been around for all of ASB :P

 

[Objection]

I think 7 won't get bogged down as long as we don't require every councillor to have his voice heard - if four vote a certain way there is no need to hear from the other three.
Activity in ASB is strong as is - with something like Pokemon people are far more likely to drift in and out of, whereas ASBers, especially those in the running for the council, have often been here for a long time and very few consider leaving.
I also think ASB has a great group dynamic anyway, fostered by the irc channel - it's far more open and far less imposing than pokemon irc channels or showdown/po chats and most people get on without any notable rivalries or dislikes between users, so dynamic and maintenance should be no easier to keep in a five-person than seven-person council for a community such as ours.

This is why I am convinced that 7 members is the better number.

I've seen arguments that 7 would make the council too cliquey, but I don't buy that. So what if several people have voting power? They're still required to consider the arguments of those who don't have voting power. They can't just completely ignore everyone outside of their little group because, as I've said time and time again, that is shitty leadership.

MK has already explained why the chances of one or two people in a 7-man council being inactive are slim, but let's suppose that the worst happens and one or two do go inactive. There will be a procedure to deal with this, probably based on (if not actually) the one in Orcinus' constitution. Nothing prevents us from following that procedure.

Not that 5 is bad, just that I feel 7 is better.

 

[jas61292]

So, I'm gonna have to say that I think 7 would make more sense for a council than 5. I know the people who have been on tiering councils are saying 5, but this is not a tiering council in any way shape or form. Really, aside from the fact that they are both councils, the two are not really that alike at all. The ASB council would be making decisions on mechanical and gameplay issues, not whether to ban and when to test things. I think having a larger group will be better for making decisions that are most in the interest of the community.

In addition, while ASB may be a small group compared to competitive tiers, the amount of activity is on par if not greater. If activity would be anything even close to an issue for someone, then they are probably not someone we want on a council to begin with. We have more than enough people that could fulfill these roles without activity being a concern at all. The issues of councils in competitive tiers are very different than the ones we have, and while I admit a 7 man council might not work there, I think it is optimal for a place like this.

 

[Glacier Knight]

I support a seven member council

 

[Dogfish44]

7 Members in my honest opinion, too small a council has nasty side effects from experience.

 

[Pallas Athena]

Supporting seven. We had five once upon a time, but it didn't really work out. I'd at least like to try something new that might ward off inactivity more.