• Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!

ASB Council - VOTING CLOSED

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lovely result. Thanks!

TBH, I would personally give 24h for a revote just on those two the same way the first voting was held (secret PMs and what-not). Since the Council is supposed to represent the player's interests, it is only logical that the players decide all its members.
 
I think eight-member council is the best solution, tbh. World ain't gonna implode if we do, and if it comes to a 4-4 vote, deck can always tiebreak. If council is that split over an issue, it couldn't hurt to get deck's input anyway

Of course i'm probably the worst person to ask, being in conclict of interest but lol w/e
 
Pwnemon said:
I think eight-member council is the best solution, tbh. World ain't gonna implode if we do, and if it comes to a 4-4 vote, deck can always tiebreak. If council is that split over an issue, it couldn't hurt to get deck's input anyway

Of course i'm probably the worst person to ask, being in conclict of interest but lol w/e
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that, even when we had a 7-man council, there was one thing we voted on (I think it was evasive Agility and evasive Teleport) that ended in a tie and required Word of Deck to resolve, so if ties aren't completely avoidable with a 7-man council and we have a nice, simple and effective way of dealing with them, then the potential for more ties in an 8-man council shouldn't be much of a problem.

EDIT @ Elevator Music below: I never really considered 7 to be too small, but if increasing to 9 men will help keep ties unlikely while solving the problem of the Pwnemon-zarator tie, I support it.
 
If we're going to expand the size of the council, we might as well make it 9. We should always want an odd number of council members; even if we can't avoid ties with 7 (or 9) council members, ties will occur much less often with an odd number. In my opinion, 7 was too small anyways, although I don't know how everyone else feels about it.
 
Whilst I personally am happy with 7 members on the council, 9 should be reasonable - and ties with an odd number are significantly rarer, especially with more members.
 
hey so if new council's term starts tomorrow then we should probably resolve this one way or another
 
Thanks to those who voted me (I'm not among those twelve, btw^^). Whatever the final decision on the council composition will be, I am glad so many people still find my contributions useful!
 
i have nothing against having 9. But it is a slippery slope.

It doesn't solve the problem. It only postpones it to the next time we get a tie. If we have a four-way tie then the next council gets 13?

If you feel like having 9 members, cool let's do it. But because of the lack of people, not this tie. We might as well solve the ties problems properly while we are at it.
 
I agree with Frosty. Perhaps ASB could take a page from CAP's procedure on these matters. When voting for our Topic Leader, our rules dictate that the CAP Project Leader (DougJustDoug) will not vote. The only instance where this individual will vote is in the event of a tie. Perhaps Deck Knight would be willing to refrain from voting in all future polls to set up a similar system. Another alternative would be to call for a vote between those two individuals, where community members can submit votes deciding between the tied applicants. Finally, it's possible to split the term; have one member serve for three months, and the other for the latter three months of the term. I'm partial to the first suggestion here, but I thought I'd throw out some ideas of where to proceed from here.

In terms of the current situation, I believe that expanding to nine seats is desirable. As CAP ASB continues to expand, it's only proper to have more positions available for dictating policies. As more suggestions and fixes roll in, it's important to have a good number of active leaders in place to keep ASB improving at an adequate rate. As some point in the future, I think the council should consider expanding from 9 to 11, in fact. It's all a matter of how many people are currently participating in ASB. The more people there are, the larger the council should be, in my opinion.
 
Opposing 11 at this point in time for efficiency reasons, expanding beyond 10 at this point in time will bog down the process notably and make regular communication between all the councilors significantly greater in difficulty. As well, I don't believe the community is yet large enough to require 11 councilors. Its certainly larger than the 5 members I supported in the initial council, and may be larger than 7, meaning 9 may be ideal, but I do not believe that reaching beyond 10 is ideal for the council at this point in time.
 
[19:34:06] <&elevator_music> alright, who here is not ok with
[19:34:19] <&elevator_music> 9 man council, first thing they have to do is come up with a solution should this happen again
[19:34:24] * Ragnarokalex (Mibbit@synIRC-F0E8BD1.dsl.netins.net) has joined #capasb
[19:34:31] <Pwnemon> i'm ok with this
[19:34:34] <%Objection> i support
[19:34:38] <Frosty> It seems lovely
[19:34:38] <Zt> Oh no, I smell a power tripping EMma.... But yeah, ^
[19:34:51] <Ragnarokalex> what are we supporting?
[19:34:55] <%Objection> <&elevator_music> 9 man council, first thing they have to do is come up with a solution should this happen again
[19:34:58] <Frosty> Emma is running for president
[19:35:04] <Ragnarokalex> ah
[19:35:06] <&elevator_music> dictator*
[19:35:12] <Ragnarokalex> lol
[19:35:15] <Frosty> same thing
[19:35:15] <Pwnemon> emma overthrows deck and establishes himself as dictator over asb

ignore my secret plan at the bottom of the log, but seriously does anybody object to this?
 
I don't think any future plans for the size of the council needs to be made, just a decision of how many to include on the council for this turn. As little as my opinion matters, I think a 9 member council will be the optimal solution; less hurt feelings, less hassle, and more ideas for the council.

However, I do think that a priority of the council should be looking at possible permanent expansion, as well as adding a clause into the constitution regarding ties, which could address some of Frosty and other's concerns about the council randomly having 13 people.
 
nah, a battle will take too long when we need a solution immediately, but tbh, I cannot see much wrong with an expansion to nine members, so... let us do this.
 
I don't totally trust this Texas fellow... he has the name Texas, but he's from Canada.

In all seriousness, a nine member council is fine. In fact I'd say it's sufficient for council members to be able to increase or decrease the size of the council as per a vote of the previous council. Hopefully the forum keeps growing.
 
In that vein we should draft up an amendment to the constitution (the Deck just approved) indicating that at the end of their term the current council will determine and vote upon if there is a need for the size of the council to change and if so what size the new council should be.
 
Nine members it is. This term will have a 9-man council. Thank you all for reading & participating. See you next term!

Cheers!
Its_A_Random
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top