Mumblefratz Mumblefratz

Metaverse Council Elections

▼

Metaverse Council Elections

from GalCiv2 Forums
The Metaverse Council (MVC) has recently lost a representative to the Lord of the Rings Online Beta. We'd like to get a new representative to replace this loss. Previously, MVC representatives have either been appointed by an active empire or selected from the GC2 community by the MVC itself.

However, one of the issues that was discussed when we initially formed the MVC was how to make it a truly representative body of the GalCiv2 community. At that time in the interests of expediency we chose to start the Council with representatives appointed by the major metaverse empires that were active at the time. It was certainly hoped that at some point we would move to a more democratic MVC councilor selection process. I think that this point is now.

I want to quickly refresh everyone’s memory about the purpose and scope of the MVC. Although the MVC did none of the actual work it’s clear that the introduction of AltMeta Classes would not have occurred without the effort put forth by the MVC. The MVC has recently been sitting on it’s collective laurels, taking a break from all the effort expended in helping to define the AltMeta Class system and partly due to the major forum changes that have recently occurred at the Galactic Core. In any case it’s time to get back to work.

Speaking of work there’s clearly a lot more to be done. Cari has provided an endgame.xml that is saved by the game and is something that we have great hopes for providing a whole range of new functionality to the AltMeta. We’re looking to be able to support Metaverse Mods, Metaverse Scenarios and Tournaments. The exact nature of these functions and precisely how all this will work are currently very far from being defined let alone having any specific detail worked out. There are certainly many challenges and a whole new set of infrastructure that will be associated with providing these functions. Anyway the point of this is to give folks some idea of the work that’s ahead of us.

So back to the topic of an election, the MVC would like to select a single MVC representative determined by popular election here on the GalCiv2 forums. To give folks an idea of what we're looking for we have the following criteria. We're not really interested in a popularity contest, however the potential MVC representative must; want the job, want the metaverse to succeed and flourish, and, be willing to put forth the effort it takes to achieve this goal. An established forum presence is a plus but not absolutely essential, however the ability and willingness to stand up and promote themselves, the AltMeta and the Metaverse is essential. The ability to cogently express their own opinions and the willingness to actually listen to the opinions of others is also important.

Experience in the game is absolutely *not* required. We'd rather have an exuberant newbie, than a jaded expert (however by no means would we turn down an exuberant expert).

We're not really looking for the second coming of JFK but we are looking for folks that can stand up and say that they want the job, be able to explain why they want the job, and be able to convince others that they would be good at the job. People should feel free to nominate any that they feel are particularly worthy, but it is expected that anyone interested should be able to mount at least a minimal 'campaign' on their own behalf.

They only absolute requirement on any that wish to be a MVC representative is that you *must* have submitted at least one metaverse game. It doesn't have to be a high scoring game, it doesn't even have to be a win, but you must have submitted at least a single metaverse game.

Actually, none of the above is really set in stone, they're really just guidelines that we can use to start the discussion. Besides actually considering who should be the next MVC councilor, a large part of this discussion should be about the actual process of how we go about this. This is our first attempt at "free elections" on the GalCiv2 site. How do you think this should be held? Who should be allowed to vote? These and many more questions are ones that I’d like to address in this thread.



metaverse
50,211 views 124 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I hereby nominate myself purely on the basis that I'm neither Australian nor Canadian

If you wish to help and have the time to spend we most certainly would be willing to have you run. Being good on councils is highly over-rated. I don't know anyone that particularly enjoys them but to get things done you need to come to agreement with folks. Sometimes you give a bit and sometimes the other guy gives a bit, but most times it's both.

You could see from the interchange between TGE and myself that none of us are always going to agree, but we do try to see the other guys side of the issue and compromise where we can. That's the essence of getting things done. The essence of getting this done in a manner that most people agree with is to have the difference of opinion that TGE and myself exhibited. That allows folks that aren't so married to one side or the other to hear arguments from both sides to use in forming their own opinion. The only thing you need to be on the council is the desire to improve the metaverse and the willingness to work to make it happen.

I see nothing that tells me that you wouldn't make an excellent nominee. I encourage you to consider it in all seriousness.
Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
@Cornhusker.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm faintly familiar with website voting from the days when I put up a few opensource websites that had voting modules included as part of the package ( For example see: Xoops dynamic web content management @ http://www.xoops.org/ ) ... my impression of what is to be accomplished here as far as voting leads me to say: a front-page link to a second-page "voting page" - one that contains a brief summary of the goals and candidate responsibilities; with a brief blurb to encourage non-registered voters to check out the qualifications of the candidates b4 voting by reading their posts and seeing what games they have posted etc; a list of the candidates; reassurance that the voters can return to the page to place their vote after doing some research at any time until voting ends; allowing only one vote per individual; and the actual voting check box - would probably work for me just fine.
Reply #54 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm faintly familiar with website voting from the days when I put up a few opensource websites that had voting modules included as part of the package ( For example see: Xoops dynamic web content management @ http://www.xoops.org/ ) ... my impression of what is to be accomplished here as far as voting leads me to say: a front-page link to a second-page "voting page" - one that contains a brief summary of the goals and candidate responsibilities; with a brief blurb to encourage non-registered voters to check out the qualifications of the candidates b4 voting by reading their posts and seeing what games they have posted etc; a list of the candidates; reassurance that the voters can return to the page to place their vote after doing some research at any time until voting ends; allowing only one vote per individual; and the actual voting check box - would probably work for me just fine.


That sounds like the total package.
Reply #55 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
a front-page link to a second-page "voting page" - one that contains a brief summary of the goals and candidate responsibilities; with a brief blurb to encourage non-registered voters to check out the qualifications of the candidates b4 voting by reading their posts and seeing what games they have posted etc; a list of the candidates; reassurance that the voters can return to the page to place their vote after doing some research at any time until voting ends; allowing only one vote per individual; and the actual voting check box - would probably work for me just fine.

This is good. The simple distillation is the point that we want to ensure that the vote is an informed vote and not just a vote for the name they most recognize. The front page vote without the second page information probably does come down not to popularity per se but more simply name recognition. Popularity is a bad enough reason to vote for someone but name recognition is probably an even worse reason. At least if someone is popular it means they are well liked, name recognition is as likely to be for ill as it is for good, perhaps even more so.

I had been going for making it as easy as possible to vote and while I must agree that would give us the widest participation the above arguement suggests that this may not result in the most informed decision. I guess the question is will folks just click an answer to see the voting thus far or will they take it seriously and follow the links to the supporting information first. I fear that they may just click first and think later. If instead we started a dedicated voting thread with a neutral introduction and candidate summary we will get far fewer total votes but perhaps each vote will be worth more because it's far more likely to be informed.

I really don't know which is best. In some sense it might be better to get more participation as evidenced by vote count at the expense of an informed voter versus fewer but more informed voters.

I feel fewer informed voters make a better decision for this one election but more voters do more to increase the awareness of the community of the MVC and what it is we're trying to do as well as increase the general communities feeling that there is something that they can affect with their vote.

I seem to be talking myself into the idea that more voters now help out the movement more into the future at the expense of perhaps a less informed decision now whereas a more informed decision now might not help out with how the MVC is viewed in the future. I'm not quite sure I'm making sense, but if I feel we have a good set of candidates I would be less concerned about a less informed vote and more concerned about how the act of holding an election itself can help generate interest in the metaverse.

Certainly I think we should do everything to make the vote as informed as possible but I think getting more people to participate in the process is a benefit in and of itself.

Anyway these are more musing on a theme than any hard formed opinion and I'd certainly like to hear other folks opinions on these ideas.

[edit] BTW ElWhopO I liked your post about the Wiki. It basically seemed to be an admonition to look before you leap. [/edit]
Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I seem to be talking myself into the idea that more voters now help out the movement more into the future at the expense of perhaps a less informed decision now whereas a more informed decision now might not help out with how the MVC is viewed in the future. I'm not quite sure I'm making sense


You explain it very well. Makes sense to me. I suppose someone will have to make a decision eventually, and I have a lot more confidence in a well-considered decision than a quick fix any day.

[edit] BTW ElWhopO I liked your post about the Wiki. It basically seemed to be an admonition to look before you leap. [/edit]

Well, speaking as just another lemming that somehow miraculously managed to hit the water instead of the rocks 824,000 times in a row ... I can honestly say I have no real claim to fame. You are far too kind, but thank you.
Reply #57 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
MUMBLEFRATZ a tinbasher is slang for metal worker. And how true, if everybody aagreed on everything and was overly diplomatic, it would be quite boring and nothing would ever get done  
Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's good to see that we have some candidates going for this opening. I agree with the idea that a Metaverse Council Member should have at least some experience in the Metaverse. I hope that rule doesn't change.

Other important attributes, IMO, would be independent thought, openness, integrity and creativity.

At this point, we seem to have two candidates.

neilo
Lynx xxx

Both are viable and worthy candidates and I can't think of anyone better to fill the post.

I'd like to add my support to neilo, based on what I see as his adherence to the above, his proven incorruptibility and willingness to speak his mind.

I would also like to see Evil Stormbringer's name added to the list of candidates for the same reasons.

Reply #59 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would also like to see Evil Stormbringer's name added to the list of candidates for the same reasons.


ES got banned, FYI.
Reply #60 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ES got banned, FYI.


That does not necessarily ban him from the election, as long as he is still informed and accepts the nomination.

Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I had been going for making it as easy as possible to vote and while I must agree that would give us the widest participation the above arguement suggests that this may not result in the most informed decision. I guess the question is will folks just click an answer to see the voting thus far or will they take it seriously and follow the links to the supporting information first. I fear that they may just click first and think later. If instead we started a dedicated voting thread with a neutral introduction and candidate summary we will get far fewer total votes but perhaps each vote will be worth more because it's far more likely to be informed.


This is more then just an election, this is the only possible way we can prove we are recongnized by the community.
Reply #62 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I third the motion for Evil Stormbringer. I'm not putting myself out of the running, I just believe that good candidates should be nominated so we can have the best representing the community.
Reply #63 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Perhaps we should wait to hear from someone who has communicated with ES since the ban to see what mindset he has right now. I have nothing against him, in fact I liked him on this forum quite a lot, but I'd just suggest some caution before nominating someone who might not want anything at all to do with GCII right now (not that I'm asserting that he's in that frame of mind).

I'm personally very happy with the candidates so far, and I think there are at least a few more people who would make good council members.


Reply #64 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is more then just an election, this is the only possible way we can prove we are recongnized by the community.

I agree it's important but I don't go quite this far. Elections are important but actually accomplishing things that have previously never been done is in my mind far more important.

Certainly Kryo did all of the work involved with the AltMeta, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the changes in place now would never have occured without the impetus of the MVC. We by no means can stand on this single accomplishment, we need to continue the effort and make something happen with Metaverse Mods, Metaverse Scenarios and Tournaments. I think these things are now in our power to do.

It's fine if these elections spread the word and get more people interested in the metaverse and in what the MVC is trying to accomplish but I feel providing something that wasn't there before and wouldn't be there without us is far more important in gaining the acceptance of the community than simply having the community check the box by a name for the latest MVC representative.

I third the motion for Evil Stormbringer.

I'm very sorry but this nomination cannot be accepted. I personally was very fond of Evil Stormbringer and have had communication with him since his banning. His banning definitely saddened me but there's nothing I can do about it. It's a fact of life. Who knows but perhaps in another incarnation Evil Stormbringer may indeed be watching what we do here today. Perhaps a little of him lives on in the rest of us.
Reply #65 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I understand that you said elections are instrumental in *proving* the MVC's acceptance by the GC2 community and that was not quite the question I answered in the above. Yes, I agree that a good turnout and participation in these elections probably does more to *prove* that the community supports us than anything else that has happened. But the point I have is that if we don't happen to *prove* it now then we'll prove it with our next accomplishment, and if not then, then the one after that.

They only real need for "proof" that the MVC truly represents the community is at the point that we wish to leverage this representation into a request for action by Stardock. At that point certainly any such request would have far more weight if it came from an organization that has "proven" support from the community. I'm certain that day will come as long as we continue to do as we have been. In the meantime there's still a lot that we can do without having to ask Stardock for anything special.
Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd like to thankyou MottiKhan for your support and also add my support for EvilStormbringer.

But i do wonder if being having a banned councilor is a good thing in the eyes of Stardock. Back in a early post in this thread Mumble was talking about a candidates requirements, and one of which would be someone who does not annoy Stardock, or something to that effect.

Now don't get me wrong, i like Evil and consider him a friend and do believe he would be a most worthy councilor but not sure if anyone is worth having at the expense of stressed relations with Stardock. If you are banned then i would say you very well may have annoyed Stardock at some time.

@Kryo. Is it a perm or temp ban please Kryo?



Perhaps we should wait to hear from someone who has communicated with ES since the ban to see what mindset he has right now.


How very true. He may very well consider the game and it's community in the past. I'm sure he will pop up at the core in the near future.

/Edit Please disregard my comments about ES. Though i stand by my opnions, Mumble's post obviously makes them a mute point. I guess there's one thing being on the MVC does for you. Mumble can type a damn sight quicker than i can . Edit\
Reply #67 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It was a permanent ban. I have it from the horse's mouth. He holds no animosity towards anyone, and I do know he'd be the first to put the kibosh (google it) on this talk. I also have no doubt that he still sees what goes on.


On a further note, I have it that, as TGE suggested, the front page poll is totally insecure, simply deleting cookies is sufficient to place multiple votes, so I would have to say that is not a reasonable option.


I'd also like to see a few more names here, I know TGE had asked whether or not it would be appropriate for a current MVC councilor to nominate someone (this was over at the Core). My response was that I didn't see why not but it would probably be good to hold off a bit to see if the name came up from another source. Perhaps now would be a good time to hear just who TGE had in mind.

I actually have an opinion or two myself about deserving candidates but I'll hold off for a bit yet.

The other thing that we should discuss is the possibility that we may want more than one councllor out of these elections. This is probably more a matter for an internal discussion within the MVC but to realistically consider it we'd certainly need more than two candidates. We'll discuss this in secret (let me see how did TGE put it. Oh yes, To the Council Chambers!! AWAY!!). I hope everyone realizes that there's not the slightest shred of animosity here.
Reply #68 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I was also a little surprised hearing of EvilS' ban and was hoping to see him come around the Core a little more like Wheel did after his banning, but I haven't seen him.
I know probably all the current councillors have an idea or two of who they would nominate if given the chance, but I'd really like to see the GC2 community step up and take charge on nominations. I thank all those that have already spoken up and encourage others(Yes I mean you reading this) to get your voice heard. There are no bad suggestions except for the ones never spoken(or typed in this case   ).


Reply #69 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
To the Council Chambers!! AWAY!!.


Indeed.

Perhaps now would be a good time to hear just who TGE had in mind.


I think I could wait a bit, I first want to see if my nominations could come from other players.

/Edit Please disregard my comments about ES. Though i stand by my opnions, Mumble's post obviously makes them a mute point. I guess there's one thing being on the MVC does for you. Mumble can type a damn sight quicker than i can . Edit\


In truth we have no set rule for not allowing someone like ES on the Council. I personally would not have a problem with it, however we as a Council have to act as a whole and I wont oppose Mumble on what he said on this ocassion. We already had a simlilar case with G.W. which could have split the Council however G.W. was able to prove he was willing to cooperate and see the meta prosper. I am not saying ES wouldnt do the same, it is just the fact that some of our Councilors would have more doubt about his possibile seat in the Council.

Plus a forum prescense is a fairly large part of the job, and that would be hard for ES to do while he is banned. Hopefully it is temporarily only since ES has a very strong forum presence and does make up a good portion of this communities activity, maybe not in the Meta but in other forums.

I understand that you said elections are instrumental in *proving* the MVC's acceptance by the GC2 community and that was not quite the question I answered in the above. Yes, I agree that a good turnout and participation in these elections probably does more to *prove* that the community supports us than anything else that has happened. But the point I have is that if we don't happen to *prove* it now then we'll prove it with our next accomplishment, and if not then, then the one after that.


The community can sometimes be interestingly like a real world country, and follows many socialistic laws, some of them being those of mob psychology. We might be condeming democratic elections for council members if we do not have at least a moderate out turn.

Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
We might be condeming democratic elections for council members if we do not have at least a moderate out turn.

We all want a good turnout. The question is what is a good turnout? In threads that I've seen with some semblance of a vote (like voting for bug fixes versus new functionality as in the AI gets an extra turn thread) if 20 people showed up and cast a ballot that would be a lot.

If you base it on the kinds of numbers that appear in front page polls (Kryo confirmed they're dependent on keeping your cookies) then I think there were 454 "votes" in a poll about DA versus DL. That's probably the highest possible kind of numbers to realistically expect. The thing is this "tip of the iceberg" issue that I've mentioned somewhere or other. It relates to the fact that far more people submit games to the metaverse than post to these forums.

One thing that has been suggested is to set up some kind of secure email voting address. I'm not quite sure how these work but I have been assured that they do work. That could possibly allow the assumedly large amount of folks that merely lurk these forums to vote as well. Of course that opens the issue of determining the validity of the electorate which we already have had words about.

So the question is would we want to try something like this which would essentially have no control or knowledge that a voter even has the game just so we can have good poll numbers? I don't personally think so. Plus this is no guarantee that we'll get the kinds of numbers we want. But if this method has some support I wouldn’t be totally against it. The argument that has been used is that if someone bothers to take the time to submit a vote they are most likely validly interested in the outcome.

That's part of the reason that this is a test. We don't know what kind of numbers to expect. I think we'll have to proceed with this kind of uncertainty and see how it goes. But if we only get 20 folks responding I wouldn't necessarily say that democratic elections are forever condemned.
Reply #71 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
first of all you gotta figure who is even interested. People may think that I am impatient   And I agree with that. But so far very few people have given even the slightest comment on this thread. Maybe if you gave away free slippers or towels more people might respond, just a thought  
Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One thing that has been suggested is to set up some kind of secure email voting address. I'm not quite sure how these work but I have been assured that they do work. That could possibly allow the assumedly large amount of folks that merely lurk these forums to vote as well. Of course that opens the issue of determining the validity of the electorate which we already have had words about.


Ummm ... I suspected from reading along here that there might be some kind of issue with security at the voting-place. It's a very well founded concern. If the site does not have a logged-in-user-only permissions system tag to apply to voting pages or voting boxes, that could be a real obstacle. I'm referring to my memories of setting up Xoops CMS polling boxes in the past, where a simple checkbox next to the site's "poll booth" module set the permissions to allow anyone to see, but only logged-in registered users to vote.

The permissions system needs to be secure because, if it is not, then a significant number of people will, not might, but will, abuse it simply to amuse themselves. The permissions system needs to be used to control the one-vote-only aspect.

I won't go into how Xoops provides excellent security in this regard in public, but I will say that cookies are not secure, and email voting is not secure. Anyone can delete a cookie and re-vote, and anyone can have an unlimited number of email addresses to use to stuff the ballot box. Just getting ISP service from my local provider here gives me 5 distinctly seperate addresses with basic service, and for a few dollars more per month, I can have unlimited distinctly seperate email address added to my account there. Pretty convenient for sending 1-2 hundred seperate votes in, if I wanted to take the 1 hour of time to set them up while relaxing at home in my favorite chair.

Sorry to be the Gandalf Stormcrow here, but I thought it should be mentioned.
Reply #73 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One thing that has been suggested is to set up some kind of secure email voting address. I'm not quite sure how these work but I have been assured that they do work. That could possibly allow the assumedly large amount of folks that merely lurk these forums to vote as well. Of course that opens the issue of determining the validity of the electorate which we already have had words about.


Ummm ... I suspected from reading along here that there might be some kind of issue with security at the voting-place. It's a very well founded concern. If the site does not have a logged-in-user-only permissions system tag to apply to voting pages or voting boxes, that could be a real obstacle. I'm referring to my memories of setting up Xoops CMS polling boxes in the past, where a simple checkbox next to the site's "poll booth" module set the permissions to allow anyone to see, but only logged-in registered users to vote.

The permissions system needs to be secure because, if it is not, then a significant number of people will, not might, but will, abuse it simply to amuse themselves. The permissions system needs to be used to control the one-vote-only aspect.

I won't go into how Xoops provides excellent security in this regard in public, but I will say that cookies are not secure, and email voting is not secure. Anyone can delete a cookie and re-vote, and anyone can have an unlimited number of email addresses to use to stuff the ballot box. Just getting ISP service from my local provider here gives me 5 distinctly seperate addresses with basic service, and for a few dollars more per month, I can have unlimited distinctly seperate email address added to my account there. Pretty convenient for sending 1-2 hundred seperate votes in, if I wanted to take the 1 hour of time to set them up while relaxing at home in my favorite chair.

Sorry to be the Gandalf Stormcrow here, but I thought it should be mentioned.


that all makes sense to me especially the part were people will screw up a vote to amuse themselves, made me laugh when I read it. chat later
Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ummm ... I suspected from reading along here that there might be some kind of issue with security at the voting-place. It's a very well founded concern.

As you mention I would share the same concerns and am not knowledgeable enough to know if there are answers, I'll have to go back and try to remember who recommended this idea but IIRC he seemed to have a decent understanding about it. I'm just guessing myself but perhpas some kind of ip address logging would stop some of this although how that would deal with DNS I really don't know. But I think this suggestion is not quite as simplistic as it appears on the surface.

Of course even if we could avoid a single voter "stuffing" the ballot box, this method would never be able to validate that any voter legitimately has and plays the game. This part of the process could only assume that those interested enough to vote have a legitimate vested interest in doing so.

But I do agree that there will be those that would want to mess with it just because they can, however as long as they could only spam a single vote then I don't think it would be much of a worry.

I guess the real question is, "Is this an attractive method of voting on the assumption that a single vote per person could be technically secure?" If the answer is no then there's not much point in seeing how the security aspect of this can be handled. If the answer is yes then it makes it worthwhile to at least chase down how this process could be made secure.

Could I get a show of hands on this question?
Reply #75 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ES got banned, FYI.


I wasn't aware, having just gotten back from a vacation. I'm sure there was a good reason for it, though whatever posts that were causal have evidently been deleted. I can read between the lines that you and him have had some sort of history.

I'm very sorry but this nomination cannot be accepted. I personally was very fond of Evil Stormbringer and have had communication with him since his banning. His banning definitely saddened me but there's nothing I can do about it.


Then I withdraw the nomination. It's not my plan or purpose to stir the pot, so to speak, on your board.

I'm just guessing myself but perhpas some kind of ip address logging would stop some of this although how that would deal with DNS I really don't know. But I think this suggestion is not quite as simplistic as it appears on the surface.


There are too many ways to spoof an IP or even simply use a free proxy to obtain a geniunely different IP address. Dynamic users (probably 99% of those here) can also just reset their modems to obtain a new one without a proxy.

It might not be a popular idea, but there should be a way to track votes by user ID among registered Metaverse users. That way, in theory, everyone who votes would have a valid serial number. No need to submit a game, so that part would still be intact. I don't know what this forum software is capable of, so that would be up to an admin.

There's no way you can be 100% secure. A determined voter will find a way to stuff the ballot box, even if it's with only a few extra votes. The question would be how much of a risk that is in reality. I'd suspect it's pretty low. We're only talking about a gaming council here.