1. Our third apparel sale is live. New design + reprint of the athletic design. Support us and get a shirt!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  3. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Policy Review Topic Leadership

Discussion in 'CAP Policy Review' started by DougJustDoug, Dec 8, 2012.

  1. The problem with having each person post half of a slate is that a slate has no fixed size. The +1/-1 power, on the other hand, looks like a balanced way to reduce the chances of a slate veto, and we all seem to agree that whatever benefit there may be to adding the veto power, we don't actually want to see a veto happen. I see it mainly as an efficient check on that one option there seems to be somewhere in every project that would just cause more problems than it's worth.

    Requiring reasoning sounds good just because I'm always for more transparency in CAP, and if mod approval doesn't slow the process, then we might as well include it. I'm not sure how much hijacking a TL could do with the +1/-1 power, but I suppose the strategic removal of a popular option could do some damage. One should never underestimate CAP's best and brightest anyway, right?
  2. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight RIP DryPass Vaporeon
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Head Mod

    May 27, 2005
    Now we're just starting to descend into madness. I think we're trying to create a system designed to be an answer to a question that is not the correct question. We have now gone from trying to fix the problems with TL power creep to creating brand new rulesets to govern the specific powers of TLs.

    Lets break this down, and instead of brainstorming a convoluted system to spread all the power we gave to TL out to either other created positions or mods, lets take the time to actually ask ourselves a most relevant question.

    Do we trust any one person to slate anything?

    BMB's biggest problem was that he violated this inherent trust we have always had in topic leaders. This thread started off cohesive but is now rambling about saying we SORT OF trust a TL, but not really. We're starting to go down the rabbit hole here, and instead of trying to codify a system (something I assure you I'm quite capable of doing) it's time to get back to our base assumptions.

    Either we trust a single person to slate properly or not. The most recent proposal essentially says "we trust one person to slate partially but not completely, and are willing to give another person slight veto power over a part of a slate." Doing something like that is a complete betrayal not of CAP's Policies, but of its culture. CAP operates a great deal on the honor system. We are hurt now and looking for answer because that honor system was violated, but our answer should not be to obliterate our entire culture because we had a single bad leader.

    My first two questions from the second post remain. Maybe I'm just being self-aggrandizing and pedantic, but I'd really like to know what all these TL + TLT proposals have to say about the role of leadership and the role of mods in resolving disputes. Clearly people wanted the moderators to stop BMB's abuses at various and sundry points, but no effective mechanism exists for that. Except we aren't discussing better appeal mechanisms to make sure moderators step in appropriately, we're discussing a fundamental restructuring of the topic leader to address what is a clear communication and support failure.

    I take interest in these models only to the extent if we're going to do it, it better damn well adhere to the principles of CAP as a competitive project and answer my questions adequately. I believe someone referred to my model as "codifying good leadership." Yes. That is exactly what I was trying to do: Make it brutally obvious that uncompetitive slating would draw maximum scrutiny from peers and moderators and would be resolved swiftly - that the elected leaders of a project and nominated and approved moderators each had a duty to keep uncompetitive excesses in check and the structural means to do so.

    No uncompetitive slates, no problem. And if elected leaders want to veto your decision, they're inviting mod scrutiny too. You really don't want us involved ever, most of us are not top tier battlers and have no desire to intervene - but if and when our hands are forced we will know it is for good reason and will be empowered to do something about it.

    CAP is a project about competitive principles kept in a meritorious, honor-bound culture, not about structural impositions that divy up official power. There are real problems with the Strong TL model, deftly exposed by BMB - but fixing them requires more than throwing new leadership structure proposals at the wall and hoping one of them sticks. It requires that any change we make be consistent with CAP's principles and its mission. I can certainly provide backup for why my proposal keeps in line with CAP's mission and principles, and I have specified each person and their role and powers. I like clarity, and I need to see more, not less of it for me to get behind any proposal that fundamentally alters the leadership structure of a CAP project.
  3. capefeather

    capefeather toot
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Apr 26, 2009
    Okay well, from what I've been seeing, the proposed modifications to the Strong TL model and the proposed Section Guide + TL model have both been pretty clearly laid out. The former probably doesn't need explaining. The latter is also really straightforward, as I understand it:

    • Thread is posted.
    • Section Guide posts to recap what we've done so far, as well as their implications, and generally gets the ball rolling.
    • Real talk.
    • TYPICAL: Section Guide and Topic Leader agree on the interpretation of community consensus for slating.
      ATYPICAL: Section Guide and Topic Leader disagree on some level on what the slate should be, given the discussion. Everyone tries to work things out DURING the discussion.
      WORST CASE SCENARIO: There is a fundamental slating disagreement between Section Guide and Topic Leader.
    • Section Guide posts his/her slate.
      TYPICAL: Topic Leader approves.
      ATYPICAL: Topic Leader alters the slate, clarifying his/her reasons for doing it.
      WORST CASE SCENARIO: Topic Leader posts Veto and proposes his/her own slate.
    • Either the poll goes up or both WORST CASE SCENARIOS have been triggered and the mods step in.
      CASE 1: The poll goes up because there was no Veto scenario.
      CASE 2: The mods say "no u" and the Section Guide slate (or a slight modification) is upheld.
      CASE 3: The mods side with the Topic Leader slate (or a slight modification).

    Notice that the only thing that really changes with the SG+TL model is the branch-off from the part "Section Guide posts his/her slate." The part "Real talk." is pretty much the same in the Strong TL model, except the SG is the TL and the TL is some influential member with no direct powers, plus the WORST CASE SCENARIO is just that the slate is bad in some way. The part "Section Guide posts his/her slate." is just a contingency plan that should be made explicit in some fashion regardless of what model we use. What I'm seeing with some of the detractors is that they demand a contingency plan, but then turn around and say that the proposed contingency plan is "against CAP principles" or makes the process look too convoluted. Yes, explicit contingency plans will make a process look more convoluted than if we just assume that we will implicitly know when and how to stop a runaway train. But in a TYPICAL scenario, if we are indeed running a successful "meritorious, honor-bound culture", these stopgaps are essentially invisible and irrelevant to the process.

    It's like a chemistry lab (well, any lab, but chemistry's probably the most vivid analogy). People in a chemistry lab are trained in preventative measures that even a class of college freshmen can follow without accidents. The training is such that chemistry labs are actually safer than the average home. Nonetheless, stuff does happen, and there are safety measures to address accidents. The "after" and "before" are separate processes and the choice of TL model we're discussing is analogous to the "before".

    The question about trust is ultimately a fallacy of excluded middle. Presumably, we can typically expect the topic leadership to run the process in a reasonable manner. However, nobody's perfect, and it's easy to fall into patterns and never improve. It's not that we always or never trust the leader(s). What trips us up is not the obvious and grandiose failure, but the subtle, the invisible, and the incremental.

    So now I see two things happening with this thread. Firstly, I may have described the SG+TL process wrong somewhere, or I did everything correctly but there may be disagreements. Secondly, the main goal with actually choosing a TL model is to prevent problems (addressing problems is for the contingency plans, which are pretty much the same regardless of the TL model). The main problems that have been cited are power abuse (atypical / typically minor) and burnout (very typical). Will the addition of Section Guides be better for preventing such problems than a modified Strong TL model? Right now, I think so, though clearly some people disagree.
  4. Birkal

    Birkal We have the technology.
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Super Moderator

    Oct 12, 2010
    I don't want to discourage further conversation with this post. If you still feel like arguing against the TLT or supporting the current TL model, that is wonderful. In fact, please continue to do those things. It's for the best that we don't charge into things haphazardly, especially when it's as crucial a subject as Topic Leadership.

    However, I desire to publicize a few thoughts about how this could all go down. It is no secret that I feel strongly that we should pursue the TLT model. Yes, there are absolutely benefits to the TL model, but are certainly holes in that system that need patching. I'm afraid that some of those holes are not fixable by maintaining the TL model. Although the TLT presents new issues, it does leave room for us to finally patch up some of those holes. Let me make a few statements to solidify this:

    The TLT model opens up more positions for leadership. If you haven't noticed, CAP is always looking for bright and enthusiastic new leaders to step up to the plate. Currently, we pretty much only offer three to four slots a year for people to lead. With the TLT model, we'd likely increase that number to around 20. That's awesome; the more people we can give a chance to lead around here, the more likely they are to stick with us and continue leading as intelligent CAP debaters in the future.

    The TLT model prevents burnout. This has been emphasized before, but I want to make it perfectly clear that this problem will not be fixed with the TL model. Sure, we can have the moderators make the polls and take care of flavor. Ultimately though, the "responsibility" of CAP currently falls on the TL. If the CAP goes poorly, the entire Smogon community leaps to chastise the TL, with the CAP community as the forerunners. No wonder TLs leave after their term; the combined pressure of daily discussion, slating, and overall responsibility is crushing. The TLT model fixes this eloquently by putting those three pressures on a group of people. It's much easier to stand your ground when you have fellow CAP leaders in the wings to back you up.

    The TLT model, to a degree, prevents one person from creating a Pokemon. jas61292 talked about this on IRC a bit today. He's pretty adamant that this shouldn't be a reason at all for supporting the TLT model. I agree with him in that the top two points are more important, but I feel that this point still has some worth, specifically in that it empowers the community over the individual. With the TLT, no one member can create their vision of a Pokemon; that work gets distributed. Since the TLT doesn't have power to create their own Pokemon either (since they have one slate), there's not much they can do either. So where does the creative aspect lie? The community, and that's what we're all about.

    If we don't like the TLT model after CAP5, we can easily revert back to the TL model. I wish to emphasize this point especially. We should, before any major decision is made in this PR thread, think things through thoroughly. We don't want to rush into a system that is doomed for failure. That's bad PR. However, the TLT model is solid enough that we have PRC members immediately picking it up and trying to polish it. And while we can theorize all we want about how well it might work, nothing will tell us better than actually doing it. Once CAP5 is over, I'd highly recommend we reconvene as a PRC to discuss the TLT model versus the TL model.

    Don't consider CAP5 to be a test run if we implement the TLT. As Wyverii has been saying over the past few days, "we need to give this our best shot." If the TLT goes through, we need to put on our game faces and give it an honest effort. We'll have a much better basis for comparing the two models once we've actually performed both of them.​

    Again, I'm not advocating that we rush into this immediately. Please, let's keep discussing the pros and cons of both models. All I'm saying is that there should be little fear in the TLT model. Yes, it's a big policy change with lots of question marks that will need to be answered. Some we can discuss in this thread. Some we won't be able to answer until the process is put into play. My fear is that this thread ultimately decides to keep the TL model, which I feel would leave the TLT model to be one of the largest "what if" moments in CAP. Rather than shirking away from a new and intuitive model due to fear of the unknown, we should boldly pursue it as a community. Whether that means through discussion in this thread or putting it into practice, I don't know. CAP is all about learning, pioneering, and discovering. Exploring the TLT model will give us further insight on our community and how this project is run, which is why I feel so strongly that we should pursue it.

    Keep the discussion going; this thread has been a joy to read over the past couple of days.
  5. DougJustDoug

    DougJustDoug Knows the great enthusiasms
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Programmeris a CAP Contributoris an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Leader

    Jun 26, 2007
    I posted most of this in conversations on IRC yesterday, so for those of you that were on #cap, this is a bit of a repeat.

    I keep going back to the primary job of "topic leadership" (not the topic leader, but the whole category of leading a CAP, other than forum moderation, which is post infracting, etc). Topic leadership is to LEAD TOPICS. ie. lead discussions. That was always the point from the very beginning of the CAP project. That is why the name of the position is Topic Leader and not Head Pokemon Designer or anything else along those lines.

    The reason we made a Strong TL was so an active, expert, energetic, involved, intelligent, influential person in the community would be out front encouraging the community to have intelligent discussions. They were supposed to LEAD US TO CONSENSUS. Not make a slate and administer votes. The slate making and vote administration was always a secondary part of the job. The primary part of the job was for the TL to be in the thick of every discussion, helping guide the community to a consensus position. But we the community have to do all the work and come up with the ideas.

    I really don't give two shits about one person's vision -- I care about the vision collectively expressed by the intelligent community. I just ask one person (the TL) to omit the "unintelligent" and "identify the consensus". But they should do so by encouraging "intelligence" (which includes "not broken" and "adheres to concept", not just literacy and textbook intelligence). And they should do so by focusing discussion on the "emerging consensus". As in: "Hey it looks like this is where the discussion is headed, let's explore this more" or "Please stop sidetracking the discussion with <X>, because we're trying to get somewhere here." Not "I want <X>. Now let's discuss it." Which is how many TL's, not just Bob -- have been doing it.

    It was never supposed to be about the power. It was a about the JOB, the responsibility to LEAD DISCUSSIONS. That's why I don't look at the TLT proposal as splitting power, I see it as dividing up the work. The work is too much for one person. One person can't actively lead every discussion for two months straight. They can't. Heck, when the TL takes 24 hours off, discussions can spin out of control and wander.

    CAP discussions need a lot of care and feeding to stay focused and on track. Topic Leaders cannot and will not spend that much time and that much effort on the job every single day for weeks on end. They may do it in bursts, but not consistently. So EVERY TL (not just BMB) has taken a shortcut at one point or another by dictating a decision that they really didn't spend the proper amount of time and effort to get the community lined up behind. They include options in polls that the community didn't really support, or they omit options from polls that the community did support. Even our best TL's have had times where their posting activity waned and they swooped in at the end of a thread and posted a slate that had a few surprises on it. It happens and we expect it because we assume this is acceptable use of Topic Leader power.

    The thing is, the "power" to make a slate was not SUPPOSED to be power really. It's just what has to be done at the end of a thread so we can hold a vote. But the community makes the slate really. If we are doing CAP the way it is supposed to be done, the TL participates actively throughout the discussion and at the end says "Ok, we've discussed a lot of options. Here's where we stand. X, Y, and Z are stupid. And it looks like the intelligent people support A, B, and C. OK, let's vote." That's all.

    The concept of intelligent options being supported by the community and left off the slate -- that should NEVER happen. Never intentionally. And if it does happen, we should not pass it off as "Within the TL's power". Because the TL does not have that power. That's where the concept of power abuse comes in -- because if an option is A) Intelligent and B) Supported by many -- it should make the slate. Period. End of story. But somewhere along the way, we added this ridiculous requirement for proposed options to be "Aligned with the TL's vision" and that's a load of horseshit.

    The operative term here is "intelligent community consensus".

    If an option doesn't support the chosen Concept, then it can be lumped under "unintelligent". If it is "broken" it is "unintelligent". If few intelligent people support an idea in the thread then it isn't "consensus". But this whole requirement that we must follow the "vision" of the TL is crap. Utter crap.

    You may say, "But Doug, the problems really come in when it is on the borderline. What is the boundary between intelligent and unintelligent?"

    I agree there is no defined boundary. Yes, we rely on the subjective call of the TL to determine that line. But they are still making a call on "intelligent" and "popular", NOT "aligned with my vision". The TL comes up with a vision that is in accordance to the Concept that we, the community, selected -- so it's never the TL's vision at all. It's OUR vision, if you think about it. If I am a discussion participant in a thread, the only reason I care what the TL thinks is so I know if I need to argue more to make two things happen:
    • Prove the "intelligence" of my idea, and
    • Gain more support from other intelligent participants in the thread

    To stick with the original analogy of the Movie Director that I started way back when I first proposed the Strong TL model -- I feel like the Strong TL model has shifted to where we ask the TL to not just direct the movie, but we are asking them to write the script too. And that wasn't the intent. On CAP, the script is written by the community as we go along (in discussion threads) and acted out by submitters and poll winners. I think the TLT model will help us move closer to that.
  6. Birkal

    Birkal We have the technology.
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Super Moderator

    Oct 12, 2010
    I know that I don't particularly like to read through logs when they're posted in the forums. However, I know there are a good portion of PRC members that don't come into #cap often. Therefore, I thought I'd share a conversation that Korski initiated this morning. Read through it if you like. Otherwise, I'll just post a summary at the end; that should suffice if you want to get the general picture.

    Log (open)
    10:40 Korski dougjustdoug, birkal: how does the TLT react to a situation where "consensus" is not apparent in non-voting discussions, such as counters, AM/NAM discussions, and stat limits?
    10:44 Birkal Mmm, good question. I'd presume that they then ask for more discussion in specific areas. AM/NAM immediately comes to mind, where the TL currently shifts the conversation around to make sure all moves are discussed at least a bit throughout the topic.
    10:45 Birkal I don't think the TL is bringing up "their vision" when they shift discussion around by saying, "hey, we've barely discussed status moves in NAM; let's talk about them"
    10:45 Birkal what are your thoughts on it?
    10:48 Birkal (you as in korski)
    10:48 Birkal hehe
    10:49 Korski there are times where we ask (or even need) the TL to explicitly state who made the best arguments
    10:49 Korski or a TL-like structure
    10:49 Korski but the TLT model downplays the need for cohesion amongst these steps
    10:52 Korski i imagine a scenario where the TLT is comprised of 4 stubborn and influental users, all of whom are 100% CONFIDENT they are correctly interpreting the concept, although they are basically infighting because their separate-but-equal ideas of "consensus" shift the project from place to place
    10:52 Korski and the poor TL
    10:52 Korski in that scenario
    10:53 Korski trying to not make frankenmon
    10:55 Birkal wouldn't stat limits be "run" by the stat leader?
    10:55 Birkal even though it's not voting, it's directly linked to why they're a TLT member
    10:55 Birkal same for AM/NAM discussions and movepool leader
    10:56 Korski well yes exactly
    10:56 Korski we are having a variety of individuals make "judgment calls" throughout the process
    10:57 Birkal but then why would the other TLT member's opinions matter/
    10:57 Birkal ?
    10:57 Birkal during AM/NAM discussion, the ability leader is just a community member
    10:58 Korski those are "direction steps"
    10:58 Korski i picture them in my lead like a string of threads starting with the concept assessment
    10:58 Korski *in my head like
    10:59 Korski where the strong TL model offered a backbone of guidance
    10:59 Korski where the strong TL can make decisions and refocus the project in between community-determined voting stages
    10:59 Korski which can turn out any which way
    11:00 Korski the TLT shatters this backbone
    11:00 Korski and "asking for more discussion" in something as heated as a normal CAP discussion thread probably isn't going to offer much in the way of greater clarity
    11:05 Birkal I view it the opposite. In the current model, I feel the TL is so busy scurrying about trying to make a proper slate that they forget to discuss.
    11:05 Birkal When you give the slate to another member (the TLT), then the TL's job is freed up to solely discussion
    11:07 Birkal And I dunno. A single TLT member, when it's in their stage, has just as much power as the strong TL did (except that they can be vetoed)
    11:07 Birkal When one focuses in on an individual stage of a CAP, I see little difference between the TL and TLT models
    11:08 Birkal other than now you have a specific member who's job is to focus the project and give reminders of the concept.
    11:08 Korski i'm not focusing on individual stages, i am considering the process as a whole
    11:08 Korski "all stages"
    11:09 Korski i worry about a "passing the baton" mentality
    11:09 Birkal in what way?
    11:09 Birkal you feel that it will confuse the community? de-focus the cap?
    11:09 Korski like "this is your problem now, do what you will"
    11:10 Birkal so... you're afraid of the baton passing to a TLT member and they're like "ugh I don't want to deal with this mess" kind of thing?
    11:11 DHR I can see that yeah
    11:12 Birkal but does that describe what you're talking about, korski?
    11:12 Korski in a situation where TLTs fundamentally disagree on the direction of the CAP, especially in the early stages, they have complete power to warp the CAP in any new direction, don't they
    11:12 DHR I'm with Korski on this about the whole clashing personalities and things
    11:12 DHR I think itll be ok
    11:13 Birkal And Korski, on the flipside, you can be an early TLT member who sends the CAP off with what you want, but then the later TLT members can take that in a completely different direction too
    11:13 DHR As long as we properly state the direction we are going in... Like, take the concept and dilute it down to its core
    11:13 Korski or, on the flip side, they can intentionally pressure the next TLT to conform to their vision, else the CAP as a whole could fail
    11:13 Birkal yes
    11:13 DHR Or be a peculiar zigzag of ideas
    11:13 Korski shit wow i said almost the exact same thing
    11:13 Birkal haha
    11:13 Birkal The thing is, the entire point of the TL in the TLT model is to promote continuity
    11:14 Birkal we have a single person who's entire job is to make sure we don't get a "frankenmon"
    11:14 Korski but the TL has only the (terrifying) veto power
    11:15 Birkal CAP is funny in that the power to physically take action isn't the only power
    11:15 Birkal discussion is a huge factor to CAP, as I'm sure you know
    11:15 Korski yes but influence cannot be litigated
    11:15 Birkal leading the community through discussion will be vital to the TL
    11:15 Birkal between having an "elevated position" in each conversation AND the power to veto
    11:15 Korski if everyone agrees to "fall in line"
    11:15 Birkal I feel that the TL would have enough tools to prevent frankenmon
    11:17 Birkal I feel like one of the huge points of CAP is that we're not about one single user.
    11:17 Birkal And somewhere down the line, we have become so obsessed with the TL position; it's crazy.
    11:18 Korski that's true
    11:18 Korski both those things are true
    11:18 DHR But then
    11:18 Birkal that's why I like the TLT model. You still have visible leaders. But it's about the community.
    11:18 DHR WHat
    11:19 jas61292 On the flip side though, I worry that now we are so obsesed with fixing that that we may lose sight of whether it actually fixes the problems. I am hesitant because I am not sure if it will fix problems, or just give the illusion of having done so.
    11:20 Birkal And that's why, if we go through with the TLT model, I want the PRC to sit down and discuss it after CAP5
    11:20 Birkal and really address "did we fix more problems or create more?"
    11:20 jas61292 I definitely agree. I do think it has enough merit to at least try out
    11:20 Korski i think we should do the TLT model
    11:20 Korski i also think we should do it PERFECT
    11:20 Korski the first time
    11:20 Birkal haha how so?
    11:21 Korski like
    11:21 Korski the project fucking rocks
    11:21 Birkal but like
    11:21 Birkal how would we make it perfect?
    11:21 jas61292 Well, that is a good goal, lol
    11:21 Korski and the idea was so clearly good in hindsight
    11:22 Birkal I agree that it would be good for comparison's sake to nail CAP5 with the TLT model
    11:22 Birkal because if we don't do it "perfectly", then our comparison is marred with, "well, maybe the model is better, we just had poor leadders"
    11:22 DHR Korski, the idea of every project is it to "fucking rock"
    11:22 Korski lol
    11:22 jas61292 At the same time though, have we ever really perfected the current system? I don't think it will be a perfect comparison no matter what.
    11:23 Korski i was just saying the pressure should be on
    11:23 Korski like CAP9
    11:23 Birkal and yeah Korski, that's something that Wyverii has been shouting from the hilltops, haha
    11:23 Birkal if we're gonna do the TLT model, let's give it our best shot possible
    11:23 Korski no half-assing this
    11:23 jas61292 Of course
    11:24 Birkal and jas, I don't think we've ever perfect it for sure
    11:24 Birkal but we have a lot of pretty stellar replicates of the TL model (both weak and strong TL) to use for comparison
    11:24 Birkal I feel that the "sampling pool" will be good enough for comparisons
    11:24 jas61292 I agree
    11:24 Birkal however
    11:25 Birkal I think if you're comparing CAP5 with the TLT model to CAP4 only...
    11:25 Birkal that'd bad; let's not do that
    11:25 Korski no
    11:25 jas61292 definitely
    11:25 Korski i still think CAP4 was a leadership problem
    11:25 Korski not a leadership structure problem
    11:26 Korski but i am excited for new things
    11:26 Birkal I have a theory on that
    11:26 Birkal I may be wrong, but I feel that the TL model is "greater chance to soar, but greater chance to fall"
    11:27 Birkal if you have a spot on leader in the TL model (reachzero comes to mind), the project is awesome
    11:27 Korski oh yeah that reminds me about the public averaging thing
    11:27 jas61292 I'm not really sure what was the problem, to be honest. There is a little of everything, and I agreed heavily with Deck in that I felt a lot of it could be because of things like concept and not necessarily structure.
    11:27 Birkal and with the TLT model, one user can never soar like that. But one user cannot fall as greatly either.
    11:29 Birkal I think the consensus of CAP4's concept stage was "we should always vote for birkal's concepts over cape's"
    11:29 Birkal eh? eh? ;)?
    11:29 Korski what if the TL had greater powers to guide the project from the beginning
    11:29 jas61292 The key is finidng the average. I would rather have a system that overall produces better results but with a chance to crash and burn than one that is alwasy mediocre. But we won't know how it is until we try it.
    11:29 jas61292 and lol
    11:29 jas61292 I was so torn on that concept vote
    11:29 jas61292 you two were my favorites from the start
    11:30 Birkal and what do you mean, korski?
    11:30 Korski what if the TL's job was to *translate* the concept into a workable theorymon
    11:30 Korski and the TLT's job was to *uphold* that translation
    11:30 Birkal use an example
    11:30 Birkal please :>
    11:32 Korski at the end of the concept assessment, the TL makes a closing post that identifies strong arguments and talks about the concept in terms of describing an actual pokemon
    11:32 Korski the TLT hope to gear their steps towards the TL's original goal
    11:32 Korski individually
    11:32 Birkal yes
    11:32 Birkal I agree with that and that's ultimately how I'd imagine it going down
    11:32 Korski not interdependently
    11:33 Birkal Concept assessment will always be the most important stage of CAP, in my book
    11:33 Birkal and I feel like how well that tool is utilized is a big indicator for how well the rest of the project will work
    11:34 Birkal and in the TLT model, it's the TL's final send off before the project gets underway
    11:34 Birkal so yes, concept assessment should still be vague enough that we can build any pokemon we want
    11:34 Birkal but it should be strong enough that we're not fumbling around with definitions
    11:35 AfKorski that may downplay the concept itself a bit, but i would be way for it
    11:36 *** Mos_Quitoxe joined #cap
    11:37 +++ ChanServ has given voice to Mos_Quitoxe
    11:38 Mos_Quitoxe jas
    11:38 Mos_Quitoxe how do you do it
    11:38 Mos_Quitoxe ?
    11:38 Mos_Quitoxe you're the only person I know whose username ends in numbers
    11:38 Mos_Quitoxe who isn't a noob
    11:39 Birkal it's incredible

    • Non-slating discussions like AM/NAM, Counters, and Stat Limits should be run by their respective TLT member, despite there being no slate.

    • One concern of the TLT model is the baton passing mentality. TLT members at the start of the process might become frustrated that the CAP changed so much, while the later members might be frustrated with the creation they're given. In resolution to this, we emphasized the importance of the TL to support continuity.

    • Currently, we're a bit obsessed with the TL position in the current TL model. CAP is about the community, and yet, we've become absorbed in catering to one person. The TLT model gives more power back to the people.

    • Concept assessment is a huge deal in determining how well the CAP will go. We need to work out some way to solidify how that stage should work, especially in the TLT model. It needs to be vague enough that the process unfolds throughout all stages, but it must also give definitions. Here's a great quote:

      11:30 Korski what if the TL's job was to *translate* the concept into a workable theorymon
      11:30 Korski and the TLT's job was to *uphold* that translation

      This is worthy of some further discussion, in my opinion. What do you think of that statement?

    • If we're going to do the TLT model for CAP5, let's rock it. When we compare the two models, it would be a poor discussion if we spent it questioning CAP5's leadership. If we're going to do this, let's do it with proper gusto so that we have a good comparison with the TL model.
  7. CiteAndPrune


    Jun 6, 2012
    Regarding baton passing, the way I see it this is purely a communication problem. As in, this is only possible if the TLT members have conflicting visions of where they want to take CAP. So long as there is solid communication between the TLT members and a consensus on what we want to create is reached, whether or not the TL is the focus that guides us, this problem will solve itself in practice. If not, well, the TL's veto power is a reasonable check to stop a frankenmon.

    Regarding Concept Assessment, I generally agree with what Korski said. We have an entire step dedicated to discussing the selected Concept in detail - if we don't end it with some clear idea and consensus understanding of the concept to lead us through the following stages, we can't really proceed, and being able to envision a Pokemon that meets the Concept is a good reference point.

    Regarding glorifying the TL - I still think the role is worth keeping for its prestige and because otherwise we still need someone to handle the Concept, however... it's worth proposing that an alternative exists.

    Now, remove the TL as we know from the TLT model. Add a Flavor Section Guide for those areas that were left to the TL. That leaves Concept - during which all Section Guides cooperate, participate in the discussion, and arrive at a consensus together. The benefit of this method would be that the communication between Section Guides and necessity for consensus are more visible; if there is a conflict in visions, it should really get brought up during Concept and and Concept Assessment and for everyone to resolve it then and there.

    Then, in the later stages, each Section Guide posts there slate, and instead of the TL's veto, the remaining Section Guides can stop the slate (but should be in agreement for this; so, with Flavor there being 4 other section guids minimum, if at least 3 post 'veto' the slate gets stopped; the standard in that case would probably be posting 'pass' instead, and only 'veto' if something is really wrong). The advantage here is that Section Guides share responsibility for 'adhering to the concept' and can impact the CAP at all stages, reminding each other on what the original consensus was. However, it's another level of red tape tacked onto the process when in actuality, making a fair slate at the end of a topic so a poll can go up isn't rocket science, but with this, would take even longer (and if one Section Guide is absent, what then?).

    So in the end, I still think the benefit of a TL in charge of the Concept steps and directing the process is, at least at a glance, better than the alternative of sharing Concept responsibility among the rest. Or at least, it's more practical with the TL involved. But, well, just something worth bringing up, I thought.
  8. Stratos

    Stratos Banned deucer.

    Aug 26, 2010
    do you guys not even read djd posts

    there is no worry of the TLT members having "conflicting visions" or making "frankenstein's monster." and if a TLT member is unhappy with the way the CAP's turned out up unto that point, then they should be gaining the support of other community members, not coercing the TLT members before them! Because when it comes to vision, the TL is just another user. the tl was invented as a bookkeeping job, and the evolution of the strong TL was simply to weed out the uninformed opinions. If an opinion with ample concept justification gets the support of a decent majority of intelligent voters, it is the TL's DUTY to slate it. This talk of "tlt has conflicting vision" is absolutely contrary to what djd's been posting.

    Frankly i see a certain amount of Frankenmon as a good thing, because it means we're doing the process right. I mean, unless some person is completely dominating the discussion, these absurdities in our creations should arise naturally. We're having disagreeing people enter competing submissions, then having a bunch of flip-floppers vote on them. If that doesn't cause some frankenstein then either we have a brilliant man arguing for things (think RD in Voodoom) or someone is fucking up somewhere.

    What we should be worried about is how do we make the fairest process that hears the largest number of people? I CANNOT stress enough that this is the most important part. I personally still throw my support behind the TLT model, because it reduces to near nothingness the odds of one person riding the project start to finish, so that neither the TL nor a potential hijacker can really run a CAP. but if someone has a better proposal, I'm all ears.

    i hate using so much bold but you guys are deaf

    ps: you should re-read the leadership compendium, particularly the part about "this is a terrible way to make a Pokemon," if making the best Pokemon is really what's important to you in this Project.
  9. Birkal

    Birkal We have the technology.
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Super Moderator

    Oct 12, 2010
    So DJD popped into IRC this morning and commented that there hasn't been a strong proposal yet for TLT and TL applications. Me, Deck Knight, Pwnemon, and some others hammered out this system. Feel free to agree with it or disagree; it's a working draft.

    Applicants can apply for any position. This means that anyone can pop in and take a shot at a leadership role. They can also apply for multiple areas at once (a potential application could include all five roles). The application will likely look similar to the current TL model. If an application is not strong enough with credentials, they won't be slated by the mods for consideration in the polls.

    The public votes for the TLT in one thread. This means that the four slots are all voted for in one thread. It would likely be single bold vote per category. The winner of Typing, Ability, Stats, Movepool will be put in the appropriate TLT spot. If one user applied for multiple spots and won both of them, then they will perform in whichever seat they got most votes for. If it's a tie, then it's the winner's selection. If they have no preference, the mods will pick. In this case, the second place winner of the section the TLT chose not to lead will take the win.

    Simultaneously, the PRC will be voting for the TL. The selective nature of who can vote in this poll will help make sure that we're implementing TLs that don't have character issues. It takes a certain type of person to drive a concept, and hopefully the PRC will be educated in deciphering who that person would be. The winner of the TL vote trumps that of TLT. If a user wins a TLT slot and the TL poll, they will be our TL and the second place member will move up to a TLT seat.

    If there's a tie that cannot be resolved, the moderators will decide. As far as we're aware, there isn't any procedure for ties in TL vote. Since we need a quick, yet informed decision, we feel that the CAP moderators can briefly meet to discuss what the proper course of action is in the situation.​

    Let's run a simulation, because I love them so much.

    Funtimes (open)
    Note: I intentionally made this example complex. I wanted to troubleshoot some tricky situations. In reality, things will probably be more straight forward than this.

    Hank, Janice, Ned, Ollie, Pwnemon, and Violet all apply for TLT positions. The CAP moderators all approve that their application posts have the proper credentials, so they are slated. Here's how the ballot looks:

    Now as you can see, people were allowed to apply for multiple seats. At this point, the public votes on the top four categories (i.e. everything sans TL). Here's how the votes tally out:

    Violet wins TLT for Typing Leader; it's the only one she applied for. Janice won both ability and stats, but since she got more votes in stats, she'd be our Stats Leader. It would appear that Hank won our Movepool Leader, but since Janice isn't the Ability Leader, we have Hank winning two sections. He had more votes in ability, so Hank is our Ability Leader. Ned is then our Movepool Leader. So in summary:

    Violet = Typing Leader
    Hank = Ability Leader
    Janice = Stats Leader
    Ned = Movepool Leader

    Now, at the same time, the PRC is voting on our TL. Let's see how that went down:

    This means that Hank will be moved from Ability Leader to the TL for that CAP. Remember, TL vote trumps TLT vote. Therefore, the runner up of the Ability Leader poll becomes a member of the TLT. So in conclusion, the leadership structure of this CAP would be as follows:

    Hank = Topic Leader
    Violet = Typing Leader
    Pwnemon = Ability Leader
    Janice = Stats Leader
    Ned = Movepool Leader
  10. Stratos

    Stratos Banned deucer.

    Aug 26, 2010
    one of the issues that I can find with the system (and i was in IRC while it was proposed!) was the problem of how to determine which position a person gets put in if they win multiple

    originally, the idea was that you'd get to choose - but then we realized that that could lead to bias of "i'll lead abilities instead of typing because i don't want hank to be a SG/Violet is my BFF" so we scrapped that idea. That led to the proposal you see above, where the place you get more votes is the one you lead

    However, i think that one has its problems also! Namely, the fact that not everyone has to vote for every position, and the fact that not every position has the same-size slate. Consider this scenario:

    Movepool SG:
    Hank - 91 votes
    Jen - 60 votes

    Abilities SG:
    Hank - 40 Votes
    Joe - 10 Votes
    Gina - 9 Votes
    Tom - 6 Votes

    (yes i know the numbers are exaggerated)

    In this scenario, Hank would be chosen as the Movepool TL - a fine choice! However, that means that Joe becomes the Abilities TL. But how many people supported Joe? A measly 10, to Jen's 60! Needless to say, picking Jen to be the Movepool TL, while Hank leads abilities, is a logical choice. So, you may say - go by the vote margin between first and second. ah ah ah - if you look closely you'll notice that this would STILL result in Hank being movepool TL, because a lot more people voted for any movepool TL than did they an Abilities TL. So, the best way to pick it, in my opinion? Percent lead. In this sim, hank had a ~50% edge over Jen, and a 300% edge over Joe. He keeps the larger percent lead, and thus becomes the Abilities TL, while Jen is the movepool TL

    i can see merits to the other proposals, also - number of votes is simple; gross margin instead of percent margin shows how many people would be affected (maybe people were more opinionated in the movepool poll?) but overall i think that % margin is the best way to choose where the winner serves (of course, TL still trumps all)

    interesting note: %margin virtually eliminates the possibility of a person getting to choose the position they vacate since a tie in that number requires crazy circumstances

    EDIT @ SRK: The reason we originally had it so that you could run for any amount of positions is because we didn't like the idea of who chose to run for one position hurting anybody's chances at another position (of course, it might still because you'll look like a goon, but that's your own fault). I don't see someone running for every position to be nearly as problematic as too shallow of a candidate pool - with 3 candidates per position, there will never be a vacancy after the votes have run their course, and the more candidates per position, the less likely we are to get some goon who got 1 or 2 votes as a Section Guide
  11. Bughouse

    Bughouse Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    May 28, 2010
    I do see flaws with that voting system, but then every voting system has flaws. So I'm not going to nitpick too much. Most of the flaws would be exposed only in rare circumstances with a lot of voting parity and some weird cases where lots of people run for lots of positions.

    To make things easier, restricting people to running for only 1 or 2 positions should lead to avoidance of most of these weird issues. Or at least only slating people for 1 or 2 positions.


    Pwnemon's scenario is probably the simplest example of one that bothers me. It's simple yet would fall through the cracks and it pretty evidently stupid to have Joe guide something over Jen. The alternative I see is this: TL election first, to avoid issues with promotion to TL and replacement being done in such a way that counters the next point, which is to consider the 4 elections all concurrently and then pick the team of 4 that will maximize total number of votes. Please read below to see why.

    Here's the issue I'm envisioning if things are all concurrent and done as proposed by Birkal. (open)
    TL Election
    Bobby: 7
    Charles: 6
    Eric: 4
    Frank: 5
    Irene: 3
    Leah: 10

    Alice: 18
    Hank: 55
    John: 20

    Alice: 20
    Charles: 37
    Frank: 8
    Kevin: 50

    Bobby: 33
    Donna: 36
    George: 9
    Leah: 40

    Donna: 27
    George: 7
    John: 18
    Kevin: 41

    Now if everything is concurrent, with TL election/promotion happening after TLT polls, here's what'd happen. Hank wins Typing. Leah wins Stats. Kevin wins both Ability and Movepool, winning Ability because of having more votes there. Therefore Donna takes over the win for Movepool. Leah, having won TL, takes over TL and Stats are given to Donna, since Donna now wins both Stats and Moves but had more votes in Stats. Therefore John takes over Movepool.

    This results in a team of:
    TL - Leah
    Type - Hank
    Ability - Kevin
    Stats - Donna
    Movepool - John

    This also results in a total "approval" of the 4 TLTs of 159 votes.

    Instead, if you try to maximize "approval" of the TLTs, you'd end up with
    TL - Leah (since it takes precedence)
    Type - Hank
    Ability - Charles
    Stats - Donna
    Movepool - Kevin

    This results in total "approval" of the 4 TLTs of 169 votes. Which is already better.

    To get the best results, though, just have the TL election first, and then the winner of TL can't run for TLT office. The fewer elections going on concurrently and the less we have to deal with "promotion" and "replacement," the more fair the election results will both be and seem.
  12. capefeather

    capefeather toot
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Apr 26, 2009
    Poor Pwnemon, nobody likes him :(

    Anyway, I'm not sure I like the idea of "most votes" or even "greatest % of votes". First of all, I think that the TL poll should be done before the other polls. If we're having the TL poll trump the other polls, why not just do it beforehand to avoid complications with the Section Guide polls?

    As for multiple-stage winners, I think that this could be resolved in the following way. First, each poll uses preferential voting. If Janice wins multiple stages, then there's a poll to choose which stage she goes into. After that, the other stage is re-evaluated based on the preferences, as if Janice had placed last in an IRV and had been eliminated. So how this would go is:

    First preferences:

    Hank - 21
    Janice - 39
    Pwnemon - 2

    Hank - 13
    Janice - 55
    Pwnemon - 1

    Poll for where to put Janice:

    Ability - 12
    Stats - 48

    So Janice gets Stats.

    Ability results with Janice voters taking their second preferences:

    Hank - 59
    Pwnemon - 3

    So Hank gets Ability.

    Now, the biggest concern here is counting everything when we were so used to using IRV on preferential ballots. So maybe my idea falls flat based on that. But, I figured, why not put it out there?
  13. Bughouse

    Bughouse Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    May 28, 2010
    Yes. This.

    This is great too. Our voting system (like many) too often may fail from only caring about favorability, without factoring in unfavorability. This method allows us to see some of both. If there are people who truly believe that a person is unqualified to do stats, since he or she may have won with a plurality but not an absolute majority, they can voice their opinion that the person should do Ability instead. Alternatively the slate could be listed such that the options offered are the actual outcomes. Like A wins two polls, B would take over in Topic 1, should A be preferred as the leader of Topic 2, and C would take over in Topic 2, should A be preferred as the leader of Topic 1. It's only fair that the slate reflects what the actual choices are: B leads 1 and A leads 2 vs A leads 1 and C leads 2.
  14. Birkal

    Birkal We have the technology.
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Super Moderator

    Oct 12, 2010
    We've been toying around with this voting thing for quite some time on IRC. There wasn't unanimous approval of the above method I proposed; it has some pretty big holes. So, we came up with a lot simpler method on IRC. Kudos to Korski and uwnim for helping out with this especially.

    All TLT members are voted for in one IRV poll. In applications, they can petition which section they'd like to lead, but they apply for TLT in general. Every TLT application is voted for in one large IRV poll, regardless of what their preferred position is.

    The top four winners of the TLT poll will be our TLT. So the top four places for the IRV win a spot on the TLT.

    The top winner picks their preferred place on the TLT. Since they got the most votes, they'd be allowed to pick which leadership position they want most. Once they choose, the second place winner picks their preferred, and it trickles down. This is how we'd assess who runs what.

    The CAP PRC, simultaneously, votes for the TL. In the application thread, all applicants indicate whether they are applying for TL, TLT, or both. The PRC would then vote on all of those who applied for TL. If someone wins TL and a spot on TLT, then they are our TL, and the 5th winner of the TLT IRV becomes a member of the TLT. Read the bottom of jas61292's post here for a method of voting for TL that works a lot better than the one I previously proposed here.​

    Hopefully this is a lot more simplistic to understand than the above model. Let us know what you think of the two systems!
  15. capefeather

    capefeather toot
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Apr 26, 2009
    Initially, I was working under the assumption that we wanted to avoid scenarios like

    However, if people prefer a simpler process like what was just posted regardless of this "issue", then I'm on board, too.
  16. nyttyn

    nyttyn Nueeeeeeeeeeeeen!
    is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Sep 8, 2010
    Seeing as how discussion has pretty much dried up at this point and we've run out of things to discuss, I would like to put my support behind the first option. Mostly because, even though it's more complicated, I don't think any of us would enjoy someone campaigning for one guide role and then when they get a majority of the votes suddenly about-face and pick another.
  17. Korski

    Korski Distilled, 80 proof
    is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Mar 29, 2009
    Yes I support this newer proposal (of Birkal's). It is clean and simple, an especially major accomplishment considering the complex leadership structure. Based on what I've read across this entire thread, I don't predict the TLT will be functionally different enough from one another to warrant separate categorical votes; if someone is qualified enough to lead one aspect of the CAP process, then they are probably capable of handling any other aspect just as well. No one will think "oh that [applicant] he's so good at stats, like the best, but damn him if he tries to get his hands on the movepool!" That's ridiculous. If you can lead one section, you can lead any section. There are no such things as "stats experts," nor would we need such things under this model.

    If the person who got fourth in the IRV is unsatisfied with the section they are "stuck with," they can abdicate without consequence to whoever got 5th, without harming the process. But that will never happen, because the "runners up" in this scenario are already "winners" and wouldn't throw such a hissy fit if they were already proven to be trusted, mature CAP contributors. No harm, no foul.
  18. Stratos

    Stratos Banned deucer.

    Aug 26, 2010
    In defense of the first proposal, I would like to explain my logic behind it - Allegations of fraud would be infinitely more detrimental to the integrity of the CAP Process than would a bad TL. The worst would be if we could substantiate these allegations of fraud in any way - because as you may or may not know, "Strategic Voting" is a very real thing in even presidential elections, let alone TL ones. For this reason, I believe, at all times, more than anything else, that acting honestly should always be in the best interest of every user. If there's any time that this is not true, I believe the process is fundamentally flawed, because it threatens to harm the legitimacy of the CAP project, and as we all know, "Appearances Matter." And I would appreciate if everyone else weighed by the same metric.

    That's what drove all of the proposals in my original TLT voting system, on many fronts - for example, I could see a user saying "shit, I guess i'll just run for abilities, because DJD put his hat in the ring for stats and we all know he'll win-" so i proposed that you could run for multiple positions. I was afraid that people would say the results of one poll influenced the next - so they all occurred simultaneously, etc.

    That said, the same problems that were solved by my original proposal are solved equally well by Korski's new proposal - voting for your favorite CAPpers will always benefit you, and throwing your hat in the ring will never cause harm to your voting prospects. The vote occurs simultaneously. And there will never be allegations of fraud because the TLT is picked in what is probably the easiest, most up-front way I have ever imagined possible. The only caveat i can imagine is that, like the TL system before it, the proposal encourages well-roundedness instead of being a "stats geek" or a "moves geek." Still, that's a small enough problem that I am willing to deal with it given all its benefits (namely, the elimination of some of the holes my proposal had in its promotion/replacement system). I support proposal 2 as the way to pick our TLT, unless someone comes up with something even better.
  19. Bughouse

    Bughouse Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    May 28, 2010
    I do think this could potentially be an issue. We say the TLT should be able to tell what "intelligent" is in terms of discussion and submissions. There honestly are people who don't know stats well. Now I don't anticipate stats EVER being the last option taken... but if it were, that could be an issue, maybe. Maybe.

    I guess I can back the second proposal. It feels deceptively too simple, but I am having a hard time poking any holes in it.
  20. I can confirm first-hand that at least one member of the CAP community is clueless about stats. That said, anyone likely to be chosen for a TLT is most likely a well-rounded contributor, with at least enough knowledge to make a slate. I'll add my support to Birkal's latest post, as the system proposed there is relatively simple, and does the best job so far of ensuring fair competition for TLT positions without confusion over section assignment. The importance of its simplicity should not be overlooked; a community as open, inviting and meritocratic as CAP aspires to be basically requires a leadership system that is easy to understand. Having TLT members choose their sections in a set order is much better than having them run for multiple positions for this reason alone. As Korski said, a TLT member can abdicate early on if he/she is not suited for any remaining position, and while I'm not so certain that it would never happen, it is unlikely and not particularly problematic.

    Quoting my favourite part, but I loved this entire post. It lays out some important CAP principles very clearly and concisely, at an important point in this thread. Well done Pwnemon.
  21. jas61292

    jas61292 used substitute
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator

    Sep 30, 2010
    I want to say that I am hugely in favor of this method. I know I had tried to say it a few times on IRC, but I'm not sure I ever really made my point well, however, the thing I have been trying to emphasize above all else is exactly what Korski just said:
    I don't really have much to add to this, I just want to reemphasize it. If you don't believe yourself to be experienced enough to lead one section, then you cannot convince me that you have enough experience to lead any of them. Only someone who really understand how everything works should be tasked with leading anything. Now I don't expect everyone to be experts at everything, and I don't ask that all TLT candidates have the credentials that TL candidates are expected to have under the current system, but we should want anyone who holds any position of leadership on the project to have at least a certain level of competence on all aspects of the project.

    So yeah, this is idea is a good thing. This one though, is not:
    May I direct your attention to this thread. Need I remind everyone that it was naught but two projects ago that we voted overwhelmingly for making the TL a public vote. Why are we suddenly wanting to go back on that decision? I know there are more positions now and most of them would be public vote, but I have yet to really see a single reason why TL vote shouldn't be public as well. As always, mods are there to weed out any unsuited candidates before the vote, so there is literally zero reason for this not to be a public vote, other that for the sake of it being different. The CAP process is supposed to be highly democratic, and it was in this spirit that we voted to let the community select the TL. Making this any different goes against the principles of the CAP project as I view them, especially in light of the decision made in the linked thread.

    With that said, if TL is to also be a public vote, it should probably come before the TLT vote. Doing it this way eliminates any complicated situation that could arise from someone being elected to the TLT but also wanting to be TL. Now obviously, if both TL and TLT have equal priority and prestige, then it is possible that such situations could arise in the reverse, but that is probably rarer. And, to avoid this completely, we could simply state that TL position is the "top priority" position and that application for it takes preference over application for TLT. Not only does this prevent any one person from being in the awkward situation of being elected to two positions, but, the way I see it, it also helps keep some more prestige in the TL position, which I believe to be a positive.
  22. Korski

    Korski Distilled, 80 proof
    is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Mar 29, 2009
    Adding to this correct post, the way I see the leadership team being elected is essentially the same way Birkal originally stated, just with a minor tweak that makes it more inclusive:
    • Leadership application thread goes up
    • Everyone applies for TL, TLT, or both
    • The thread closes
    • Public vote for TL
    • Public vote for TLT (the TL-elect would be removed from this poll)
    • TLT members assign themselves positions
    • CAP
    There, quick and painless. Familiar, even.
  23. Stratos

    Stratos Banned deucer.

    Aug 26, 2010
    and now i'm going to pull a bmb and say "READ THE WHOLE THING, DON'T BE LAZY" because i'm afraid if i try to summarize, i'll miss an important point or counterpoint. Besides, the entire log is only like 1500 words and there wasn't much activity at the time so it's all relevant
  24. Bughouse

    Bughouse Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    May 28, 2010
    I still agree with the current working model in that the TL election should be first and should be open to all, not just PRC. I really need to see some conclusive reasoning for why simultaneous voting will lead to less, or at least preferable, bias in voting. Also, proof that the PRC is any better at determining things than the "wisdom of the crowds," which is pretty damn accurate most of the time. Without those pieces of evidence, I see no reason not to favor clarity and democracy.
  25. CiteAndPrune


    Jun 6, 2012
    I agree with srk above.

    Also, what capefeather said, the TL candidates are screened upon their sign ups so any inelligible candidates won't ever be available for voting. From the ones that remain, honestly anyone could do a fine job being the TL (or such is the idea, at least). There's value in holding the public vote open to everybody, in CAP's democratic spirit.

    As for accussations of bias, that can happen in any model. But I really don't think that's a big concern. The casual voters will just follow the presented rules for the process, choose a TL, choose the TLT, and get on to CAP making. It's only the self-proclaimed elite that had some strong reason to vote for one member over another or abstain from voting if a specific member is chosen, that could have any interest in accussing the system of being unfair. I can't think of anyone among us who'd try something like that - how much must we prepare for such an edge-case?

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)