Posts from Draft of the Regulations for the Elections of the HeroesWorld Arbitration Committee.

The key points of the Regulations seem to have been decided.

The Draft Regulations for the election of the HeroesWorld Appeals Committee are submitted for approval.

1. The Appeals Committee is elected for 1 year. If a member of the Appeals Committee resigns, their position is taken by the Player who, according to the results of the Voting, ranked 8th, 9th, etc.
2. The date of the Appeals Committee elections is June 1 (tentatively), 2010.
3. A player registered on Volde for at least 3 months and who has completed at least one online (offline) Heroes 3 tournament on Volde, or who has been registered for at least 3 months and has played 15 online games in Heroes 3 on Volde across all Seasons, or who has been registered for at least 3 months and has organized at least one online (offline) Heroes 3 tournament on Volde, is eligible to participate in the voting for the election of the Appeals Committee.
4. A player registered on Volde is eligible to be a member of the Appeals Committee.
5. A player participating in the voting in the corresponding thread created for voting indicates the players (more than 7 are allowed) whom they would like to see in the Appeals Committee.
6. A player participating in the voting is not allowed to vote for themselves.
7. According to the results of the elections, 7 players are selected for the Appeals Committee by a simple majority of votes.
8. A second round of elections is held in case of a tie in votes and a lack of vacant positions in the Appeals Committee. For example, the seventh and eighth players on the list received the same number of votes; therefore, only these players participate in the second round. In the second round, the player(s) who receive a simple majority of votes are selected for the Appeals Committee.
9. Players on Volde can express a vote of no confidence in the Appeals Committee at any time. The Appeals Committee is obliged to resign in its entirety if, as a result of the Voting on the Dismissal of the Appeals Committee, a simple majority of Players meeting the criteria in paragraph 3 of the Regulations express their lack of confidence in the Appeals Committee. In this case, early elections to the Appeals Committee are held.

Players are asked to approve or reject the proposed version of the Regulations by means of a Poll. This draft will be considered approved if it is accepted by a majority of Players.

7. Based on the election results for the AC, 7 players are selected by a simple majority vote.

I think that 7 is too many. The optimal number is 3, with a maximum of 5.

I think 7 is too much. 3 is optimal, a maximum of 5.

I'm not arguing, it's just that we settled on that number at the time.

I don't argue, it's just that at the time, they decided on this number.

What prevents us from changing this number now?
7 is too much. The more numerous the structure, the more inert it becomes, and you can't expect it to be effective in operational work. I suggest voting for three options: 3, 5, and 7.

Who prevents us from changing this number now?
7 is too much. The more numerous the structure, the more inert it is, and you can't expect it to handle operational tasks. I suggest voting for three options: 3, 5, and 7.

I think the smaller the structure, the more biased it is.

For example, in a structure of three people, two dislike Bay and everyone associated with him (e.g., Alex :). This means that decisions regarding players who use Bay will be accordingly biased.

But when there are more participants, there are more opinions, which means more objective decisions.

I think the smaller the structure, the more biased it is.

For example, in a structure of three, two people dislike Bay and everyone associated with it (like Alex :)). This means that decisions regarding players who use Bay will be accordingly biased.

But when there are more participants, there are more opinions, which means more objective decisions.

As for how a structure of 7 people works, we all see it very clearly. One person is absent, then another, and by the time one person gets up to speed, another... In the end, they make decisions after two months...
And regarding the negativity towards Bay (Portal, League, etc.), it's up to the voters to choose. Let them choose the most unbiased people. So that the love for the game comes first, and then the resource.

13 people – just like in the first Christian community, and the motto is: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the log in your own eye?”…

P.S. They’ll probably delete this again for trolling.:o

...
9. Players of the game can express a vote of no confidence in the Administration Committee (AC) at any time. The AC is obliged to resign in its entirety if, as a result of the Vote of No Confidence, a simple majority of Players meeting the criteria in paragraph 3 of the Regulations express their lack of confidence in the AC. In this case, early elections to the AC are held.

...

Still, half is too much; in my opinion, a third is enough. What kind of dispute resolution body is this if its decisions are not approved by more than a third of the active players, to such an extent that they are not too lazy to express their opinion about it.

For example, dismissing the cabinet requires more than half of the votes. So, it's democratic and perfectly correct. Pasha wrote everything correctly.

The date for the re-elections is approaching. In my opinion, the election algorithm outlined in our regulations needs to be supplemented. Based on past experience (I conducted the elections last year and know the situation better than anyone), this is very important. First, the possibility of WITHDRAWALS has not been taken into account. Currently, at least three (as far as I know) members of the current Arbitration Committee are withdrawing their candidacies. But it is obvious that votes will still be cast for them. This means that the opinion of some players will simply be lost. Players will vote for those who will ultimately decline. There is no possibility of SELF-NOMINATION. If a person wants to work, has ideas on how to improve things, and has the opportunity, then, in my opinion, they should have the opportunity to express this. Whether or not they are voted for is up to the voters. It is possible that a voter simply FORGOT about someone and did not include them in their list. Then they saw a good candidate, but it was too late, and they voted. Therefore, I still believe that it is necessary to conduct the elections in two stages. 1. Nomination of candidates, self-nominations, withdrawals. Compilation of a complete list, including ALL candidates who are actually ready to work. Deadline - 2 weeks. (Last time, we did this in a few days, not everyone had time to express their opinion, and a proper list was not compiled, and then we had to make additions). 2. Open voting on the list on the forum. Moreover, for each candidate, it is necessary to vote FOR and AGAINST. Last time, there were many discussions about TRUST/DISTRUST in the judging by certain candidates. Now, too, part of the forum trusts someone, and part of the forum does not trust that same candidate. I believe it is essential to conduct two open votes on the forum - for and against each candidate. And it is necessary to establish a clear criterion for "trust." For example, 20 people voted for Candidate A, and 19 voted against. Personally, such a judge does not inspire confidence in me. I thought for a long time about introducing "trust coefficients," but then the idea arose to simply subtract the number of votes AGAINST from the number of votes FOR, and if the result is the same for several candidates, take into account how many percent of those who expressed their opinion on a particular candidate voted FOR. For example, 26 people voted FOR Candidate A, and 10 voted AGAINST; 19 voted FOR Candidate B, and 3 voted AGAINST. 26-10=16, 19-3=16, but in the first case, FOR - 72%, and in the second, 86%. The second candidate has an advantage. Of course, there may be controversial cases where the advantage of one over the other will be small. Perhaps it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a revote. Of course, the regulations have already been approved, and I voted for them myself. At that time, I did not read them very carefully and did not think about the nuances that might arise. If what is written is not relevant, then we will not change anything.

I also have a question regarding the selection of the so-called chairman. It turns out that this position isn't the most desirable. Last time, everything happened naturally; how will it be this time? Regarding the coefficients, I don't know; it's too complicated to calculate this "lack of trust." Objectivity seems questionable, in my opinion, especially with a small number of voters. A list of withdrawals is definitely needed before the vote so that only real candidates participate. And in general, with each step, this body increasingly resembles a bureaucratic apparatus, which is not good.
Can we list more than 7 candidates, or is there a limit?

I also have a question regarding the definition of the so-called chairman. As it turns out, it's not the most enviable position. Last time, everything worked out on its own. How will it be this time?

That's right, this also needs to be clarified. Logically, after the final approval of the Arbitration Committee's composition, they should choose the chairman themselves.

Regarding the coefficients, I don't know, it's too difficult to calculate this "lack of trust." Objectivity is questionable, as it seems to me, with a small number of votes.

Of course. But those who receive few votes will not pass based on the number of votes. It's complicated, but in any case, it is necessary to take this into account somehow.

Can more than 7 candidates be nominated, or is there a limit?

Yes, this point also needs to be revised.

The date for the start of the re-elections is approaching. In my opinion, the election algorithm outlined in our regulations needs to be supplemented. Based on past experience (a year ago, I conducted the elections and know the situation better than anyone), this is very important.

If what is written is not relevant, then we will not change anything.

I agree with Peter.