Monstrata wrote:
It isn't feasible to hold a vote across the entire BNG. Something like selecting x amount of readily available BN's would be better. I think 7 is the most feasible. Selection should be random, of course, and participation in vetoes should become a mandatory responsibility of BN's. Currently, it seems as if people who don't want to participate in votes can just not. There is no penalty for not participating, but as a result the vote may be skewed. Therefore, in order to ensure participation, I feel BN's who are chosen to participate in any veto mediation vote must also provide a short opinion on their choice (yes or no). I think it only has to be 2-3 sentences, nothing major, but this is to at least acknowledge that the BN has participated in the veto and isn't just going to blindly vote yes/no to everything and be non-toxic. (Voting no to a veto mediation is NOT being toxic, let's not set any bad precedents).
Randomly selecting BNs was my first thought too though but in that case, we'd need to anonymise it as a fewer number of people is probably more prone to bribery. Also in that case the mapper must have a chance to contest the decision made by the BNs because if you are unlucky and get 7 people selected that all are in favour of the veto despite maybe most of the other BNs being against the veto, the decision would not be representative of the whole group.
Monstrata wrote:
How to get into Management Team?
I'm sure a few people (hi Ascendance) will be interested primarily in this. Is there a process to get into Management Team? And what will happen to other aspects of the mapping/modding community? I'm talking about pushing forward new amendments and changes to the Ranking Criteria mainly. (Which is another subset issue). How will people be chosen for this specialized team?
This has yet to be decided but I think it will probably go into the same direction as QAT promotions in 2017 pre-upheaval where when somebody shows good management skills (e.g. managing different projects well) and good behaviour (as they will most likely have the same permissions as QAT have right now) they will be brought up in the "Management Team" and a majority vote/discussion will happen.
Monstrata wrote:
Also if someone is rejected, what is the cooldown before they can reapply again?
Yeah, this has been an oversight and totally needs to be added. I think 3 months would work well as that's the current length of a cycle but I personally wouldn't mind reducing it either.
Monstrata wrote:
Another note: I feel severity of a kick should be considered too. For example, BN's kicked for missing too many unrankable elements, or are inactive etc... should not be subject to a 3 month cooldown imo. I feel that for unrankable elements, this suggests the BN needs more training, or isn't thorough enough, but 1-2 months should be enough. For inactivity, well, can't a BN just resign if they know they will get kicked for inactivity? Then they would be able to reapply 2 weeks later. On the other end, I think behavior-related kicks could be 3 months. I think having a flat # of months is not necessary, and you guys could change the cooldown to suit the specific case of the BN being removed. Basically, make cooldowns more case-by-case and not necessarily do 3 months for everyone.
The numbers in the proposal are still quite arbitrary and will probably be adjusted when we polish it. I like this idea though!
pimp wrote:
i don't like the idea of giving the DQ button to all nominators
What's the problem with that? The BN rules will be adjusted to forbid any kind of abuse and I believe we can trust BNs with another button, especially since it can't really break anything.
______
We also still need to figure out how to handle probation exactly. I have seen very strong opinions on this from both sides - while some people think it's very important to see if new guys are fit for the role and to give people who messed up another chance, others think it should be replaced by a system like the old three strike system where whenever you have a major messup, you get stricken and once you accumulated three strikes you get removed.
I'm not entirely sure which one of these works best with the proposed systems so I'd like to get some more thoughts on that here too.
Moreover, I wouldn't get too hung up on the score system yet as its direction heavily depends on implementation. I feel like the best way to go about it would be a system where both the amount of dqs, their severity and the BNs activity are calculated into a score and then once a BN drops below a certain threshold, a bot pings the "Management Team" and they'll look closer into that BN's case.
We will also try to keep you updated with the score system when concrete planning has started, i.e. there will most likely be a separate proposal for that in the future.