Jump to content


Photo

Response to MT's Proposal - Removal of a Moderator by the Community


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 March 2018 - 11:52 PM

Introduction

Surveys have recently been circulated on the Stratego Forum. Their intention has been to establish how the community feels about certain topics, but without discussing ‘How big is the Stratego Forum community?' the significance of any survey result is difficult to assess. Perhaps the opinions of a few people may only be regarded as a drop in the ocean, or given too much credence, or are assigned too much weight that is disproportionate to the size of the community.

In the recent draft proposal by MT* (to amend the terms relating to the removal of a moderator), the pre-requisite to any community poll was that 25 signatures were required within a week. Is that clause grounded in logic and borne out by the actual numbers?

The aim of this analysis is to establish what levels of numbers of the Stratego Forum Community constitute significance (with particular reference to MT’s proposal) because without such an assessment it is impossible to interpret results and make decisions with confidence.

Let me preface this next section by mentioning that you do not need to take my word for any numbers that appear - all the Forum statistics presented in this analysis are searchable and verifiable here: http://forum.strateg...desc&filter=ALL

How big is the Forum community?

To answer simply, there are 3089
 Forum members. This is the total historical number of accounts who have ever joined the Forum.

Membership of a gym does not guarantee that you are lifting weights every daily. You may have last visited the gym 5 years ago. When we are asking about the size of the Forum Community the question we really need to ask is ‘How big is the active Forum community?’ It is of no value to include, for example, an account which joined 3 years ago and never posted. So we need to apply a sensible parameter to this membership to see who actually visits this gym.

‘Forum Activity’ is the most viable parameter and presents a few more choices – as well as determining when a member joined, we can see when they were last online, how many posts they have made, and how recently they last posted.

Members Filtered by Activity

Let us begin with counting the Members who have visited the Forum across different time periods. 

1. Table of Members who visited the Forum in the last x months 

394 Members who visited the Forum at least once in the last 6 months
365 Members who visited the Forum at least once in the last 5 months
321 Members who visited the Forum at least once in the last 4 months
278 Members who visited the Forum at least once in the last 3 months
217 Members who visited the Forum at least once in the last 2 months
167 Members who visited the Forum at least once in the last 1 month

Now, this table includes anyone who has visited the Forum, regardless of their level of involvement in the community: they needn’t necessarily have made a post, they may have just logged in once and decided it wasn’t for them, or they may have become a die-hard member. It seems logical to apply some level of activity to distinguish a passing tourist from a resident of the city. After all, if we were to gauge the community reaction to opening a local cinema in Patras, we would not seek to consult the population of Tennessee – the breadth of the sample must be relevant. Luckily there is an available filter to measure whether a Forum member is an active participant – the number of Forum Posts. The following table does not require a Forum member to be particularly active – just one post within the time period in question would suffice

2. Table of Members making 1 Post or more

271 Members making 1 post or more in the last 6 months
220 Members making 1 post or more in the last 5 months
217 Members making 1 post or more in the last 4 months
196 Members making 1 post or more in the last 3 months
153 Members making 1 post or more in the last 2 months
120 Members making 1 post or more in the last 1 month

 

It is important at this stage to recognize that the size of community is dependent on the Time Period. ‘How big is the Active Community over a period of 6 months?’ is a very different question from ‘How big is the Active Community over a month?’

If we are to measure the Active Community, we should apply a minimum post count. A member making just one post historically can hardly be considered a full-time community member. To avoid a number that anyone is likely to argue against, let us apply a very small minimum total post count of 5. Let us refer to members who have a total post count of 5 or more as
 Basic Members
.

3. Table of Basic Members (Total Post Count > 4) making 1 Post or more

172 Basic Members making 1 post or more in the last 6 months
163 Basic Members making 1 post or more in the last 5 months
153 Basic Members making 1 post or more in the last 4 months
141 Basic Members making 1 post or more in the last 3 months
118 Basic Members making 1 post or more in the last 2 months
98 Basic Members making 1 post or more in the last 1 month

Now let us look at a clause in MT’s proposal. For a petition to reach the polling stage, 25 signatures are required in one week.

While we can drop the condition that requires a member to have actually made a post in the time period specified, it is important that the member has visited the Forum in that time for a very simple reason – if a member does not visit the Forum during a week in which a poll, survey, or petition is published, then that member will have no awareness of such matters and cannot be legitimately counted as currently active

4. Table of Basic Members (Total Post Count > 4) visiting the Forum 


197 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 6 months
185 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 5 months
177 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 4 months
169 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 3 months
150 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 2 months
125 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 months
115 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 3 weeks
105 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 2 weeks
96 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 week

Another clause proposed by MT is that for a voter to become eligible for the poll they must have made a minimum of 50 posts by the beginning of the petition week. The logic behind this clause is clear. MT do not want people making fake accounts to bolster a vote, or perhaps recruiting their friends to vote – they only want the opinion of those who care (i.e. the active community).

Let us now apply the 50 post criteria to the data. Let us refer to members with a total post count of 50 or more as Eligible Members.

5. Table of Eligible Members (Total Post Count > 49) visiting the Forum in the last x weeks

80 Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 month
74 Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 3 weeks
69 Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 2 weeks
65 Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 week

As you can see, when you require that a member can only vote when they have a total post count of 50 or more, this reduces the number of available members for any time-frame by approximately 33% – however, we now have a big inconsistency. Under MT’s proposal, anyone is allowed to be involved in the petition phase, but a completely different set of people are allowed to be involved in the polling stage. The logical question to ask is: ‘Why?!’ The qualifying criteria for each stage must be consistent. If not, it is like asking a room of people what they want to eat for lunch, but then only counting the opinion of those who have a beard.

There is a further condition in MT’s proposal that Eligible Members must also have signed the Alias Register. You might argue that signing the Alias Register isn’t a great obstacle to those wishing to vote, but it does have the potential to further reduce the number of Eligible Members, particularly when a sizeable portion have not signed the Alias Register. Let us refer to those members who have signed the Alias Register as Registered Eligible Members.

6. Table of Registered Eligible Members (Total Post Count > 49) visiting the Forum in the last x weeks

58 Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 month
54 Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 3 weeks
50 Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 2 weeks
49 Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 week

Of course, we do need to exclude MT members and honorary members who are hardly likely to risk a relationship and betray a colleague to join a petition against their own team. Let us refer to those members as Authenticated Registered Eligible Members. These members actually account for 7 of the total for each line, and must not be counted, thus:

7. Table of Authenticated Registered Eligible Members (Total Post Count > 49) visiting the Forum in the last x weeks

51 Authenticated Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 month
47 Authenticated Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 3 weeks
43 Authenticated Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 2 weeks
42 Authenticated Registered Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last 1 week

In other words, should a poll be open for a month only to members who have signed the Alias Register and have a total post count of 50 or more, then we could expect 51 people to have the potential to participate. I stress the word ‘month’ because it is important that the timescale is matched to the time available to record opinion. If the time available to take a poll was only two weeks then this would decrease the size of the eligible community (in regards to MT’s proposal) to 43. Now, I stress the word ‘potential’ because there is a further consideration – you cannot operate under the assumption that every member who has visits to the Forum would participate in a poll or survey.

The reality is that many simply will not care enough to venture an opinion. Perhaps they only visit the Forum to participate in a tournament PM, or to visit a certain section of the Forum. Having 50 members visiting the Forum in the past week does not mean that you can expect 50 members to participate in a survey or poll that has a time-frame of one week. In fact, of the many polls taken historically on this site, it is extremely rare for a poll (opened for a time far longer than a month) to reach even 20 participants – and polls ask simple questions demanding far less time than a survey.

 

Given that an unknown proportion of these members will not care enough to participate, how can we estimate this proportion?

We can compare the numbers visiting the Forum who do not post in that time period (bystanders) with the numbers who do make a post in the time period (activists). Table 3 shows Basic Members posting in the Forum whilst Table 4 shows Basic Members visiting the Forum. We can therefore calculate the percentage of bystanders and activists respectively as follows:


10. Table displaying proportion of Basic Members who post (activists) and those who do visit without posting (bystanders)

197 Basic Members visited the Forum in the last 6 months (of which 172 posted) Bystanders = 12.6%
185 Basic Members visited the Forum in the last 5 months (of which 163 posted)
Bystanders = 10.8%
177 Basic Members visited the Forum in the last 4 months (of which 153 posted)
Bystanders = 13.6%
169 Basic Members visited the Forum in the last 3 months (of which 141 posted)
Bystanders = 16.6%
150 Basic Members visited the Forum in the last 2 months (of which 118 posted)
Bystanders = 21.3%
125 Basic Members visited the Forum in the last 1 month (of which 98 posted)
Bystanders = 21.6%

In any given period therefore, between 10-20% of Basic Members who visit the Forum will not get actively involved.

We can also look at the proportion of bystanders and activists among Eligible Members (those with 50 total posts or more):

11. Table displaying proportion of Eligible Members who post (activists) and those who visit without posting (bystanders)

102 Eligible Members visited the Forum in the last 6 months (of which 85 posted) Bystanders = 16.7%
98 Eligible Members visited the Forum in the last 5 months (of which 83 posted)
Bystanders = 15.3%
95 Eligible Members visited the Forum in the last 4 months (of which 81 posted)
Bystanders = 14.7%
93 Eligible Members visited the Forum in the last 3 months (of which 77 posted)
Bystanders = 17.2%
90 Eligible Members visited the Forum in the last 2 months (of which 73 posted)
Bystanders = 18.9%
80 Eligible Members visited the Forum in the last 1 month (of which 63 posted)
Bystanders = 21.3%

This gives a similar result, with between 15-20% of Eligible Members visiting the Forum whilst not getting actively involved.

I will end by addressing and attempting to answer 10 important questions that should be asked when trying to obtain a significant and meaningful result. All of the following questions should be approached in the context of the size and activity of the Stratego Community.

 

Question 1 - What format should a poll take?

This can either be posted to the Forum or sent as a PM. A PM has two clear advantages - the sender can see if the message is received and viewed (this is not possible in a Forum thread) and the recipient can also be targeted. Rather than relying on the arbitrary nature of a Forum thread (some members may not see the thread - and over time the thread becomes buried) the PM method makes it possible to directly approach all Eligible members. The sender of the poll needs only to send out a few group PMs asking for an opinion, and all doubt as to whether the recipient is aware is instantly cast aside, thus giving far more validity to the PM method.

 

Verdict: Poll by PM to all Eligible Members (sent by MT)

 

Question 2 - How long should a poll stay open?

A poll conducted by PM can stay open far longer than a poll in a Forum thread - and still maintain authenticity. The longer the time-frame of a poll, the more members will be aware of its existence. To illustrate this, a poll open for only one day will only capture the opinions of a very small sample.

On the other end of the spectrum, it is undesirable for a poll to remain open for too long. MT understandably does not want such an event to drag on endlessly - closure is required. This is sound logic for setting the length of a poll for one month. From a perspective of authenticity and reaching the community - it should certainly be no shorter than one month.

 

Verdict: One month

 

Question 3 - Who should be eligible to take part in a poll?

Eligibility is necessary to ensure that the member cares enough about the community for their result to be considered. I understand MT wanting to keep this number as high as 50 (for reasons explained earlier - so that fledgling members cannot be persuaded to vote by a friend), but this is to venture that the opinion of someone with a post count of 50 is much more relevant than someone with a post count of 45. 

 

Of course - you can make the same argument wherever that number lies, hence why this section is the most subjective – there is no number of posts that indicates that a member is invested in the community. The criteria should be high enough only to establish that a member cares and is invested in the community on some level. 

Personally I would suggest a two factor approach to eligibility.

1. Members who have a total post count of X posts or more are Eligible

Provided that:

2. They have made at least one post in the Forum in the three months prior to the opening of the Poll 

 

In short, the first condition guarantees that the Member is invested in the community, whilst the second condition ensures the member is currently active and prevents dormant users being brought out of the shadows to vote on the request of a friend.

 

Additionally with the second condition there is no need to require the signing of the Alias Register

 

Verdict: Eligibility based on Forum activity is viable, provided that the eligibility criteria for the poll and petition are consistent

 

Question 4 - How many participants of a poll are required to consider the results meaningful?

 

First let us estimate the number of Members who would have their vote counted. This depends on the Eligibility Criteria established in Question 3. For the sake of argument, let us use the criteria that MT proposed - which is that members are only eligible with a total post count of 50 or more, and let us also add Condition 2. from Question 3. (Members must have made at least one post in the Forum in the past three months). If these were the parameters for eligibility, how many Eligible Members would there be?

 

The answer begins by using Table 5. There are 80 Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the last month. Of these 80, 3 have not made a post in the last 3 months.

This brings our total of Eligible Members to 77.

 

The next stage is unavoidably subjective. You could argue that there should be no minimum number of participants. After all, if a poll has been sent to every eligible member by PM - and they have had a month to respond, what basis is there to assert that a certain level of participation is not enough?

I understand that MT would wish to avoid the scenario where a poll was sent out to all eligible members - and only 20 cared enough to respond. But is that grounds to arbitrarily state that the poll is to be negated through lack of participation? You cannot count abstinence as an expression of either support or disapproval.

If 11% of the community support an idea, 9% of the community disapprove of the idea, and 80% abstain completely - surely the relevant factor is whether they have been given the opportunity to provide an opinion. Under democratic principles at least - the example above would be supported. 

 

Verdict: Any minimum number of participants is entirely subjective. What is of more importance is that all Eligible Members - whatever the criteria - are invited to give their opinion

 

Question 5 - What % of approval should be required for a result to be determined?

 

MT’s proposal suggested that 50% (+1 vote) is enough to determine a decision either way. This is in line with Democratic principles, and there is no reason to suggest anything different

 

Verdict: 50% plus 1 vote

 

 

Question 6 - Should a poll require a petition as a pre-requisite?

The logic behind requiring a petition as a pre-requisite to a poll is sensible - it determines whether there is enough support for a poll to be justified. (There is little point sending out a poll to the entire community if only a couple of people would support the petition).

 

Verdict: Yes

 

Question 7 - What format should a petition take?

 

The format of the petition should be a Forum thread for one simple reason. If the petition is sent out by PM to eligible members then you might as well not bother with a poll. (You would be wasting Members time by asking them the same question twice).

 

Verdict: Forum Thread

 

Question 8 - How long should a petition stay open?

 

As previously discussed in Question 1, Forum threads quickly become buried and do not have the guarantees of reaching recipients compared to PMs. 

 

We can assert with reasonable confidence that any member that visits the Forum on the day the petition is published will become aware of the petition. We cannot assert that any member who visits the Forum 2 weeks after the petition is published will see the petition.

 

So due to the fact that the visibility of a petition decays with time, we should be answering this question with regard to how many Eligible Members we can expect to see the petition. If a one month poll should seek the opinions of 77 Eligible Members (Question 4), then the petition needs to be open for a time long enough that the majority of these Eligible Members will become aware of it.

 

Based again on the numbers in Table 5, if the petition was open for two weeks then we could estimate that as many as 69 Eligible Members may see the petition. Of course a proportion of them would not, but this time period is long enough to raise awareness amongst the majority of Eligible Members. You could make the petition longer, but an additional week – due to the decaying visibility - would likely not increase the number of Eligible Members that you would reach.

 

If the petition duration is too short, then the number of Eligible Members who will become aware of the petition’s existence will be too small a proportion.

 

Verdict: Two Weeks

 

Question 9 - Who should be eligible to take part in a petition?

 

Verdict: The same members who would be eligible to take part in a poll on the same subject

 

Question 10 - How many signatures should be required for a petition to warrant a poll?

 

The number of signatures required should match the time-frame in question, and be consistent with the number of Eligible Members.

 

We can estimate the number of Eligible Members who will become aware of the petition. If the petition is only open for a week, then the number of Eligible Members will be the number of Eligible Members who have visited the Forum in the past week. This number is provided in Table 5 - it is 65.

Now we can assume that a reasonable number of those 65 will become aware of the petition. As mentioned earlier in the discussion below Table 7, there will of course be some who visit the Forum for a specific purpose and do not take the time to browse the Forum and become aware of the petition.

 

In addition, the analysis of Table 11 suggests that there will also be 15-20% of Eligible Members who do not become actively involved in such matters. This will reduce the number of Eligible Members that we can expect to consider a petition significantly. We cannot assume that users of the Forum will participate - whatever their opinion. Members may feel pressure to vote one way or another, or may prefer to abstain entirely

 

Furthermore, as mentioned before, historical surveys and polls have rarely ever reached 25 total participants - let alone 25 participants who agree with each other.

 

So how do you determine the number of those members that should sign a petition in order for it to succeed? Interpreting a poll is far easier - you can just draw the line down the middle at 50%. But there is a difference that makes comparing polls and petitions difficult - a poll provides the results of those who are for and against a proposal, whilst a petition provides only one half of the numbers. As such you cannot use a %, you must use a discrete number. How do you determine that number?

 

I think the most important factor to consider is the purpose of a petition - to assess whether there might be support for a poll. It is quite feasible that only 5 people sign a petition and then 50 members provide support in a poll. It is also feasible that 30 people sign a petition and then only the same 30 provide support in a poll.

 

If the ultimate aim of a petition is to assess potential support for a poll, then one must accept the possibility that any minimum number of signatures might actually - for the reasons discussed above (eg Members lacking awareness of the petition and members preferring to avoid public conflict) - derail a petition that would have succeeded.

 

To anyone who states ‘there must be 25 signatures’ I would counter: On what possible grounds? As the tediously long answer to this question reveals - this is just far too subjective, and there are too many factors at play.

 

What is certain is that the number of required signatures should be high enough to avoid wasting everyone’s time, yet low enough to ensure that a potentially successful petition is not derailed.

 

A more sensible approach to adopt is to consider the following scenario:

 

A survey asks the Community to rate the performance of Member X. The options are Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Terrible and Poor. 

 

The results of the survey reveal that 10 people rate Member X positively (either Excellent, Good or Satisfactory) and 15 people rate Member X negatively (either Terrible or Poor).

 

If a petition proposed to remove Member X, we can estimate that at least 10 people would not support the petition. Therefore - in the context of this particular question - the minimum number of required signatures should be 11. 

 

Verdict: The number of required signatures for a petition to succeed should be the minimum number which means the result of a poll could not be guaranteed.


  • Don_Homer, Losermaker, Morx and 4 others like this

#2 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,844 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 12:17 PM

waouw! ... this is an impressive and factual analysis. For your info I have reached more or less the same results but with a totally different approach. Let's assume that eligible players for voting on removal of a mod by community are only those who are registered in alias register. These are 60-70 players only and these are more or less also the most active on this forum. So I agree with you the 25 signature is to much compared to the effective voters basis but the 50%+1 of those who will have voted is a good number. Anyway a 5 signature petition as criteria to decide if making a poll or not is also good. If there are no 5 players at least agreing for that then there is no point making a poll and the desire of that minority (of <5) to remove a mod has no reason to be satisfied. On the other side if there are only 10 voters in the poll from which the 5 who have signed the petition then you would probably agree with me the result would be biaised. I would suggest a valid vote is when a minimum of 20 players eligible for vote have participated to the poll and then set the decision criteria at 50%+1 or 20 players whichever is lowest to apply. Duration of the poll can be 2 weeks but if all people registered in the alias register will have been invited by pms to vote in the poll.


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#3 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 18 March 2018 - 12:30 PM

removed


Edited by rgillis783, 18 March 2018 - 12:41 PM.


#4 cflag

cflag

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 18 March 2018 - 12:43 PM

How big is the Forum community?

Very nice analysis Opt, I think the active members in this forum do not exceed 150, especially if the multiple accounts are removed.This is confirmed by tournaments entries that are always under 80.
Also INTERNATIONAL ONLINE STRATEGO RANKING  list has only 124 accounts from which some have played minimally or 1 time.
Verdict:
The only thing that keeps this forum active (beyond the tournaments) is the excessive addiction of some members (not more than 20) to be here everyday for several hours,creating issues/posts (sometimes serious and other funny).
 
P.S. In my opinion it is unpleasant that the behaviors they show dont appoach other members rather usually remove them.
Best regards

Edited by cflag, 18 March 2018 - 12:44 PM.


#5 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 713 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 18 March 2018 - 01:35 PM

@TheOptician, just wow. That was a thorough piece of analysis work

 

@Napoleon 1er, I agree with most of what you say, like the 50%+1 vote is good.

 

There is one potential issue that we also see by real live referendums organized: the minimum turn up is sometimes more important especially if the losing side already knows that they are going to have a hard time.

 

It is likely that those in support of a moderator would rather not vote to invalidate the turn up numbers rather than having their favorite moderator being taken down by for instance a 17-3 vote.



#6 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 01:52 PM

(1) Let's assume that eligible players for voting on removal of a mod by community are only those who are registered in alias register. .

 

(2) a 5 signature petition as criteria to decide if making a poll or not is also good.

 

(3) if there are only 10 voters in the poll from which the 5 who have signed the petition then you would probably agree with me the result would be biaised.

 

(4) I would suggest a valid vote is when a minimum of 20 players eligible for vote have participated to the poll and then set the decision criteria at 50%+1 or 20 players whichever is lowest to apply.

 

(5) Duration of the poll can be 2 weeks but if all people registered in the alias register will have been invited by pms to vote in the poll.

 

Let me address each of your points in turn (I have added the blue numbering to your quote for easy reference)

 

(1)  The issue with only counting Members as Eligible Members if they have signed the Alias Register is that there are different types of consumers of the Forum. The Alias Register is required for tournament players only and not every Forum Member enrols in tournaments. The Alias Register has been in place now for exactly one year, and there are 103 Members who have made entries, yet there are 255 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the same time-frame. So the proportion of Basic Members who use the Forum for tournament purposes is only 40%. Now if the poll was relating to a TC matter then it would make complete sense to involve the Alias Register in eligibility requirements - given that they are the users of the service. 

 

As is illustrated when comparing Table 5 and Table 6 - using the Alias Register in eligibility criteria reduces the number of Eligible Members (in a time period of one month) from 80 to just 58. That means 22 Members (almost 1/3rd of the eligible population) would have their opinion disregarded simply because they have not signed the Alias Register. 

 

In this specific example, this means that the poll would not consider the opinions of all of the following members as valid: maxroelofs, cflag, Sohal, DarthRemark, Mr. Smith, OuWeSok, Silverhammer, KissMyCookie, Kernel Mustard, dutchkillers, kostas2506, Dobby125, TemplateRex and many more - many of whom have years of Forum experience and have made several hundreds of Forum posts and make great contributions to the Forum.

 

(2) It is my view that a 5 signature petition can be a fair requirement, but that it depends on the subject. (See Question 10 of my original analysis). To illustrate this, imagine the situation where a petition was started to remove Moderator Y. The previous data on this subject ( a survey assessing the performance of Moderator Y) showed that 20 Members were satisfied and only 5 Members were satisfied. The number of signatures required on that particular petition should be 21, because any less than that number and you can  guarantee the petition will fail.

 

(3) If a poll was sent to all Eligible Members and the results of the poll were 5 v 5 , then the petition should fail because there is no majority. I don't see how this can be described as 'biased'. 

 

(4) Forgive me as I don't quite understand this clause. Does this mean that a result is only valid if 20 Members have voted? If so, a vote of 19-0 would fail, whereas a vote of 19-2 would succeed (which makes little sense as the consensus is larger in the vote that fails). Or does it mean that a result is only valid when the vote to remove is 20 or larger? If that is the case, then you are establishing a subjective minimum limit (20) of Members - based on what assumption? 

 

(5) As discussed in Question 2, the shorter the time-frame of the poll, the less Members will be aware of the existence of the poll. If the intention of the poll is to gauge the opinion of the community, then the poll becomes more authentic with time (as more Members see the poll and have the opportunity to respond).

 

As Table 5 illustrates, if you reduce the poll length from one month to 2 weeks, then the number of Eligible Members likely to see the poll is reduced from 80 to 65 (a reduction of almost 20%). 2 weeks is therefore a sub-optimal time-frame for a poll. 



#7 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,844 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 02:14 PM

see my answers in blue below:

Let me address each of your points in turn (I have added the blue numbering to your quote for easy reference)

 

(1)  The issue with only counting Members as Eligible Members if they have signed the Alias Register is that there are different types of consumers of the Forum. The Alias Register is required for tournament players only and not every Forum Member enrols in tournaments. The Alias Register has been in place now for exactly one year, and there are 103 Members who have made entries, yet there are 255 Basic Members who have visited the Forum in the same time-frame. So the proportion of Basic Members who use the Forum for tournament purposes is only 40%. Now if the poll was relating to a TC matter then it would make complete sense to involve the Alias Register in eligibility requirements - given that they are the users of the service. 

 

As is illustrated when comparing Table 5 and Table 6 - using the Alias Register in eligibility criteria reduces the number of Eligible Members (in a time period of one month) from 80 to just 58. That means 22 Members (almost 1/3rd of the eligible population) would have their opinion disregarded simply because they have not signed the Alias Register. 

 

In this specific example, this means that the poll would not consider the opinions of all of the following members as valid: maxroelofs, cflag, Sohal, DarthRemark, Mr. Smith, OuWeSok, Silverhammer, KissMyCookie, Kernel Mustard, dutchkillers, kostas2506, Dobby125, TemplateRex and many more - many of whom have years of Forum experience and have made several hundreds of Forum posts and make great contributions to the Forum.

 

right but even those players have not registered into alias list they can register to it if they want to vote. There is no obligation to participate to tournaments to have the right to register in alias list, right?

 

(2) It is my view that a 5 signature petition can be a fair requirement, but that it depends on the subject. (See Question 10 of my original analysis). To illustrate this, imagine the situation where a petition was started to remove Moderator Y. The previous data on this subject ( a survey assessing the performance of Moderator Y) showed that 20 Members were satisfied and only 5 Members were satisfied. The number of signatures required on that particular petition should be 21, because any less than that number and you can  guarantee the petition will fail.

 

(3) If a poll was sent to all Eligible Members and the results of the poll were 5 v 5 , then the petition should fail because there is no majority. I don't see how this can be described as 'biased'. 

ok but assume the answer would be 6 (from which the 5 who have signed the petition) vs 4 ... i guess it is important to have more voters, at least 20, to consider the result as representative of the eligible community.

 

(4) Forgive me as I don't quite understand this clause. Does this mean that a result is only valid if 20 Members have voted? If so, a vote of 19-0 would fail, whereas a vote of 19-2 would succeed (which makes little sense as the consensus is larger in the vote that fails). Or does it mean that a result is only valid when the vote to remove is 20 or larger? If that is the case, then you are establishing a subjective minimum limit (20) of Members - based on what assumption? 

yes, but in the extremely unlikely case where there is a 19:0 or let's say any result showing more than 70% in favor of mod removal then i would recommend to let the poll open one more week with re-pming the eligible community in order to get at least 20 voters

 

(5) As discussed in Question 2, the shorter the time-frame of the poll, the less Members will be aware of the existence of the poll. If the intention of the poll is to gauge the opinion of the community, then the poll becomes more authentic with time (as more Members see the poll and have the opportunity to respond).

 

As Table 5 illustrates, if you reduce the poll length from one month to 2 weeks, then the number of Eligible Members likely to see the poll is reduced from 80 to 65 (a reduction of almost 20%). 2 weeks is therefore a sub-optimal time-frame for a poll. 

ok, I'm fine with any duration from 2 to 4 weeks but always with invitation to the eligible community by pm.


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#8 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 03:11 PM

(1)  You are correct that there is no obligation for someone who signs the Alias Register to participate in tournaments, and that if someone wanted to vote in a poll they could sign the Alias Register to make themselves eligible. But consider that some Members may not wish to sign the Alias Register, and that some Members may be deterred from voting if it requires this additional step. This requirement therefore has the potential to reduce the number of votes.

 

May I ask - What is the purpose of requiring Members to sign the Alias Register? 

 

(3) & (4) What is the basis for requiring 20 voters? If every Eligible Member has been afforded the chance to participate (with some choosing to express an opinion and some choosing not to express an opinion), what is the logic that you use to arrive at the number 20? The results of a poll that has been issued to every Eligible Member is 100%* representative of the Eligible community. If a Member chooses not to vote either way then - provided that they have seen the PM - it is a decision that they have made.

 

(*The actual % representation depends on the % of Eligible Members who read the PM)

 

(5) I agree that the Poll has to be issued by PM to all Eligible Members as this maximises the validity of the poll (See Question 1 in my original analysis). I maintain however that a 2-week poll is inadequate, because a poll with a shorter time-frame reduces the number of Eligible Members that would become aware of the poll. 



#9 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,844 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 05:37 PM

see my answers in blue below:

(1)  You are correct that there is no obligation for someone who signs the Alias Register to participate in tournaments, and that if someone wanted to vote in a poll they could sign the Alias Register to make themselves eligible. But consider that some Members may not wish to sign the Alias Register, and that some Members may be deterred from voting if it requires this additional step. This requirement therefore has the potential to reduce the number of votes.

 

May I ask - What is the purpose of requiring Members to sign the Alias Register? 

you are somewhat sure nobody will vote twice with 2 different accounts

 

(3) & (4) What is the basis for requiring 20 voters? If every Eligible Member has been afforded the chance to participate (with some choosing to express an opinion and some choosing not to express an opinion), what is the logic that you use to arrive at the number 20? The results of a poll that has been issued to every Eligible Member is 100%* representative of the Eligible community. If a Member chooses not to vote either way then - provided that they have seen the PM - it is a decision that they have made.

if the participation% is to low then it is not necessarily representative of the whole community

(*The actual % representation depends on the % of Eligible Members who read the PM)

 

(5) I agree that the Poll has to be issued by PM to all Eligible Members as this maximises the validity of the poll (See Question 1 in my original analysis). I maintain however that a 2-week poll is inadequate, because a poll with a shorter time-frame reduces the number of Eligible Members that would become aware of the poll. 


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#10 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 05:49 PM

(1)  So you are stating that the purpose of signing the Alias Register is to ensure that no Member votes twice in a poll? You needn't worry about this because only the votes of Eligible Members are counted in a poll! Additionally there are currently zero aliases that have made a post in the last three months and have a total post count of 50 or more. In other words there are no eligible aliases. (You can check for yourself).

 

(3) & (4) Again I understand that a poll should be representative of the active community, and that the definition of 'active' depends on different activity parameters. But my question is - if every Eligible Member has been contacted - what is the basis for the number 20?



#11 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,844 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 06:33 PM

(1)  So you are stating that the purpose of signing the Alias Register is to ensure that no Member votes twice in a poll? You needn't worry about this because only the votes of Eligible Members are counted in a poll! Additionally there are currently zero aliases that have made a post in the last three months and have a total post count of 50 or more. In other words there are no eligible aliases. (You can check for yourself).

 

ok personnally i prefer the rule of being registered in alias register rather than having 50 posts minimum. But i agree one or the other is self sufficient.

 

(3) & (4) Again I understand that a poll should be representative of the active community, and that the definition of 'active' depends on different activity parameters. But my question is - if every Eligible Member has been contacted - what is the basis for the number 20?

 

no real rationale for 20 ... just 10 is obviously to low and 30 seems high ... it's a personal perception ... where would you put this limit?


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#12 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 08:06 PM

Wow.  I confess I read this whole thread.  An hour of my life I'll never get back!   :)   First off, I agree with all of Theo's logic.  If this is going to be done it should be done how he suggests.  Second, I think the MT is crazy to entertain a mechanism like this.  It will create nothing but bad feelings.  The existing mechanisms for removing Mods are sufficient.  I read somewhere on one of the other threads a couple of weeks ago (or maybe it was a PM) that the impetus for this was that the MT couldn't be trusted to police itself because they had to work with each other so none would confront a bad apple.  But if you subscribe to that logic you must concede it also works on the forum as a whole.  How do you think it will play if 20 members try to eject one or more MT and fail?  Do you think they'll ever be comfortable that they'll get a fair shake from these Mods going forward?  Do you think it will affect their decision to commit their name to a petition in the first place?  Do you think it will be a net good for the forum?  Food for thought. 



#13 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 08:22 PM

People who let their decisions be influejced by personal grudges aren't worthy of the position in the first place.

It will just expose the bad apples... eh.. apple again.

If you think the 1.4 procedure is enough, that means that MT does not represent people's thoughts (see MJ survey about performance of individual mods).

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#14 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 09:04 PM

 

(1)  So you are stating that the purpose of signing the Alias Register is to ensure that no Member votes twice in a poll? You needn't worry about this because only the votes of Eligible Members are counted in a poll! Additionally there are currently zero aliases that have made a post in the last three months and have a total post count of 50 or more. In other words there are no eligible aliases. (You can check for yourself).

 

ok personnally i prefer the rule of being registered in alias register rather than having 50 posts minimum. But i agree one or the other is self sufficient.

 

(3) & (4) Again I understand that a poll should be representative of the active community, and that the definition of 'active' depends on different activity parameters. But my question is - if every Eligible Member has been contacted - what is the basis for the number 20?

 

no real rationale for 20 ... just 10 is obviously to low and 30 seems high ... it's a personal perception ... where would you put this limit?

 

 

(1) Do I understand you correctly that you prefer the criteria 'member of the Alias Register' to 'Member with total posts of 50 or more' in regards to determining Eligible Members who can vote in a poll? If so, you might as well have no eligibility criteria whatsoever, because anyone wishing to vote can simply sign the Alias Register.

 

As I see it, the benefit of defining Eligible Members in relation to Forum Activity for example - is that you can establish the Members invested in the community and ask their opinion.

 

(3) & (4) My full answer on this matter is explained in Question 4. of the original analysis. Any minimum number of voters required to make a poll valid is entirely subjective and based on one's feeling of the size of the community without rationale - thank you for conceding this. Who is to say for example that a vote of 25-23 should be invalid, but a vote of 27-23 should be valid? As such, I would not suggest any minimum number of voters. Of far more importance is to inform all Eligible Members of the poll and give them the opportunity to make a decision.



#15 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 19 March 2018 - 01:11 AM

People who let their decisions be influejced by personal grudges aren't worthy of the position in the first place.

It will just expose the bad apples... eh.. apple again.

If this is a reply to me I'm not sure what you mean.  I'm not saying a Mod would hold it against someone; I'm saying the petitioner would believe they would.

 

If you think the 1.4 procedure is enough, that means that MT does not represent people's thoughts (see MJ survey about performance of individual mods).

Yes, I think 1.4 is sufficient.  The MJ survey doesn't prove otherwise.  It doesn't even prove anyone wants any Mods removed.  That is, unless you assume it's not a poll and is instead a petition to remove Mods who don't score high enough.



#16 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 19 March 2018 - 09:18 AM

People who let their decisions be influejced by personal grudges aren't worthy of the position in the first place.

  

If this is a reply to me I'm not sure what you mean.


Dont worry, Darth. He was talking to the mirror.

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#17 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 713 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 19 March 2018 - 10:16 AM

@Darth: from what we saw in the MJ survey, 1 moderator got 10 terrible and 5 poor out of 24 vote.

It seems that the users are capable to distinguish who is doing a good job and who is not.

 

@Clone 1 - maybe you did not see Nortroms approval rating for his time as moderator for another site? It was very good.

 

Or maybe you missed the team approval rating of the WCO Team, slightly above 8.2 with over 30 voters.

 

It is more likely he was talking about the person that was somehow related to apples:"It's like a man walks into a room eating an apple, proudly declaring to the room that he does not eat and never will eat apples, and he actually expects everyone in the room to believe him."

 

Note that this is the same person that got 5 poor and 10 terrible in the MJ survey.

 

Random illustration from the MJ survey

HW5iHE8.png



#18 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 19 March 2018 - 05:25 PM

Yes, I think 1.4 is sufficient.  The MJ survey doesn't prove otherwise.  It doesn't even prove anyone wants any Mods removed.  That is, unless you assume it's not a poll and is instead a petition to remove Mods who don't score high enough.

Depends on how you look at it I guess. If it is acceptable for you that someone with a very poor score can stay, then you are right that 1.4 currently suffices.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#19 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 March 2018 - 01:13 AM

@Darth: from what we saw in the MJ survey, 1 moderator got 10 terrible and 5 poor out of 24 vote.

It seems that the users are capable to distinguish who is doing a good job and who is not.

 

Not the point we were discussing.

 

 

Depends on how you look at it I guess. If it is acceptable for you that someone with a very poor score can stay, then you are right that 1.4 currently suffices.

Without litigating the specifics of Lo's case, it's absolutely acceptable that someone with a poor score here could stay. 

 

Regardless, it has no bearing on the sufficiency of 1.4. 



#20 Morx

Morx

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 713 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 20 March 2018 - 01:59 PM

@Darth: with regards to the piece of Game Theory mentioned on how the MT does not clean up their own nest (A starts to remove bad MT member D, talks to B about this, B does not like this and informs D, who sets up meeting with E to protect him), I think it works different for the whole user base.

 

"I read somewhere on one of the other threads a couple of weeks ago (or maybe it was a PM) that the impetus for this was that the MT couldn't be trusted to police itself because they had to work with each other so none would confront a bad apple.  But if you subscribe to that logic you must concede it also works on the forum as a whole.  How do you think it will play if 20 members try to eject one or more MT and fail?"

 

I think that starting a vote that would be close to get the majority vote might fail as well due to the mechanism you describe, but that most of the users are actually able to determine when it was enough and know when there is a strong majority already supporting the push for removal.

 

In the example at hand regarding performance of a member of MT I mentioned 10 terrible votes and 5 poor on a total of 24. I would guess there people would be willing to stand up and do the right thing.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users