Tsunami Gaming

And no, I'm not talking about North Korea.

Starting January 1st, 2012 -- I am to going to have a new "government" formed for this community. I still have to tweak out some bugs and "lessons learned" from my old "Council" design, but it will be something very similar.

The idea is to get you guys more involved at the core level. I don't want people to just come here to talk about some video games and make donations from time to time. I want to develop friendships, promote ethics, and develop a gamer democracy. For those of you that have known me over the years, I've been very passionate about this. We've seen people that have resisted friendships, ethics, and democracy - but they're now gone.

The reason I am announcing this ahead of time is because I want you all to take part in forming this government by providing feedback about it.

Because I only have about 10 days to implement this, the first round of "leaders" will be appointed by me as a temporary group. We'll then hold a poll in the near future to "ratify" them, which will give them the approval of the people. At that time, their first term will start (minus whatever time they've already spent). From then on, we will hold occasional elections.

I'm debating on two different structures: either a "strict democracy" (where almost everything is an equal vote, including myself) or what I'm calling a "democratic-oligarchy hybrid" (where people are still voted into positions, but each position is weighted - and I would reserve a spot for myself with the most heavily weighted seat).

This really comes down to whether or not you guys feel it is in the best interest of the community to keep me in a secured position of authority, or if it would be better for the community to be handled by popular vote.

Please give this sincere and mature thought. And thing about the community in the long-run. When you're thinking about this, consider all the types of the things we've gone through in the past and some of the issue we may face in the future. Then think about the type of government you'd like set up to deal with those issues.

I think the weighing up of ranks is a good idea, but I think if you're going to do that, you shouldn't operate with a 50% majority being sufficient - something like a 70-75% majority. This protects the community from changes which would only be brought about because of the outweighing (if there was no outweighing, the motion would be opposed).

But either way works. Just a matter of changing the majority rule in order to make the outweighing fairer on the community and the rest of the voters.

With the "strict democracy" approach, it would be more of a popular vote - more eligible voters - and it would be a majority rule. Though there would probably be a minimum margin. At least for important issues. That would all get written into the fine print.

With the "democratic-oligarchy hybrid" approach, the idea I was leaning towards would be establishing a three-tier system that I would oversee (sitting at the top tier). Each tier would be weighted so that it equaled the total voting power of the tier above it. For example, whatever my tier was worth in voting power, the tier below (split between, lets say, 2 people) would be equal to that. And then the tier below them (each split again into two) would add up to that same total. Thus making each tier "equal" as a whole, but broken into smaller and smaller votes as you go down a tier. This would leave the balance of power in the hands of the trusted (avoiding traditional bureaucracy) - but with a failsafe that enables "the people" to rally against that leadership if necessary.

Thus the two different systems I'm proposing.

Good idea, should hopefully provide some needed impetus.

You should just refer to the second model as 'American Republicanism' .

Either system will probably end up functioning very similarly.

Ranking has always been a prominent area of Tsu/Tgn BUT eligibility for the ranks is what IM concerned about. Would popularity affect the vote. such as new members applying

Yes, popularity would affect the vote. That's reality. It's the same anywhere in the entire world. Would you really want to appoint a brand new member that no one knows as your leader? As people become more active and known in the community (even if its amongst their own friends) -- they're more likely to be voted into office.

This makes it possible for whoever is the most active in the community to effectively lead it.

What I was getting at was something like this. Say you (Sean) have "three" votes (or that your vote represents three votes). People on the second tier have "two" votes each and people on the bottom tier have "one" vote. This means the first two tiers have a collective vote amounting to nine votes. Ideally, you'd have nine people on the bottom tier so the bottom tier matches the tiers above (so tier one + tier two is equal to 50% but with a lot less people, and the bottom tier is equal to 50% but with a lot more people). Then, set a majority rule of like, 65% or at least 12 votes for the motion. This would mean that the people actively engaged in the community (and I mean who really play the games and have a lot less "power") can actively oppose any changes that would affect them in a negative way.

Feel free to refuse my idea. It's the same system that rule changes are brought about in football (soccer) with the IFAB, expect there's just two tiers.

This is exactly what I was talking about. My system currently consists of three tiers. The second revision that I discussed with Nightma12 is this:



I may adjust it to be a two-branch system, though - rather than a three-branch system. The numbers are somewhat irrelevant (it's more about the ratios and balance at each tier). After I figure out what I'd implement, I would establish "ground rules" (a sort of "constitution" - eg. updated TsuBible) which would include how the system works so that it cannot be modified and used to hijack control of the community. Essentially I would establish a minimum points needed for certain votes (for example, drastic changes like "starting the site over from scratch" shouldn't be something that a 51% vote can initiate - a 100% vote should be required for something dramatic). I just need to settle on the foundation first, before I can implement the details.

Sounds good, sorta like the Water Buffaloes from the Flinstones, or it's parallel Stone Masons. Or of the the less educated, Sons of Anarchy. I think there needs to be some a constitution of sorts tho, like only members that have been here X time can be nominated for positions, only members that have been here X time can vote (so smurf accounts with 1 post cant spam votes), that kinda thing

fl00d3d wrote:After I figure out what I'd implement, I would establish "ground rules" (a sort of "constitution" - eg. updated TsuBible) which would include how the system works so that it cannot be modified and used to hijack control of the community. Essentially I would establish a minimum points needed for certain votes (for example, drastic changes like "starting the site over from scratch" shouldn't be something that a 51% vote can initiate - a 100% vote should be required for something dramatic). I just need to settle on the foundation first, before I can implement the details.

^

Also, I have considered two types of "filtering" for those eligible to vote. In a pure democratic system, everyone would be able to vote - but each voter is also authenticated. Since we cannot do that, it would more than likely consist of a minimum post count and possibly even a minimum donation. It would obviously be something reasonable, but I have to make a condition in which some stray who doesn't benefit the community can't indirectly control the direction of the community.

Like I have always said, simplicity is the best way to go. This seems to complex for what it is-- a gaming community.

too*

Spurs wrote:Like I have always said, simplicity is the best way to go. This seems to complex for what it is-- a gaming community.

It's more than a gaming community. It is a network and web-ring of sites and friendships that aims to promote values and philosophies. Most communities fail or lose their sphere of influence within a year or two. Sustaining growth and survival over the course of many years requires a well thought-out framework.

I like the idea of balancing power, but at the same time believe it would be best for the community if you (flood3d) stayed at the top. I think it should take a whole teir +1 to take you down so to say. If the issue at hand was of importance and your opinion was not one of the community mind it would take some effort to unseat you while maintaining order and allowing the community to steer itself. Might i suggest that you somehow remove yourself from the vote on some of the leser issues though as the current setup whatever it may be would most likely reflect your opinion on the matter. That I would think should also help with you having to bear the load of the community. Part of holding some of the lower teir positions could come with some responsibility within the community though it might make finding qualified candidates harder to find. If your power is not absolute then i believe those with the potential power to remove you should also be just as active in the maintenance of the community. If one man is not gonna be the controller then the responsibility of running the place both workload and financially should be shared. I think you touched on this when you were talking about maybe finding a way to make a min donation for each teir.
Hope some part of this helps with your decision and good luck. I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with for the future of this community.