Proposal for Veteran votes

[Romedy]

So, I wasn't going to touch this with a 60 foot pole, but ....

*gets 60 foot pole*

The complaints as I see them are:
- ballot stuffing by certain players with multiple accounts
- staff using info to spam for certain candidates
- Staff bias in vet nominations

Hopefully that was nice and succinct. So, I propose the following:
1.) Compile a list of the 40-ish most active players on the server in terms of non-AFK hours. (This is already done by Zerg and spans the past 2 months.)
2.) Remove current veterans and mods from the list, leaving the most active residents and donors. (Theoretically a default could make this list but it is unlikely.)
3.) The top 10 most active donors and residents will then submit up to 3 names for veterancy. (I am all about transparency/accountability, so I would like to see this list made public. (If for no other reason than it would allow players the opportunity to learn about and change behaviors. Maybe that is too much of an old-man concept...) However, I understand the drama that may cause. Up for debate.
4.) The players that submit are NOT allowed to submit their own name.
5.) The players will be required to JUSTIFY their submission. ("Hes my frnd" is not a justification...)
6.) Tally and done.

Strengths for consideration:
* I feel this completely removes staff bias unless a player constantly communicates with a vet+. I would prefer to see the staff police themselves on an honor code. Up for debate...
* This removes the info-spam as it serves no purpose.
* No ballots = no ballot stuffing. A name can be a submission a maximum of 10 times.
* It simplifies the veterancy process and encourages general politeness/helpfulness.

Weaknesses for debate:
* Does not satisfactorily address some of the "requirements" for veterancy. (ie Being active is a prerequisite to offer submissions, but not to win.
* If lists are made public, can cause drama. If lists are kept private, can cause drama ...
* Eliminates players with a busy life from making submissions. (I could argue both sides of this, I think.)

*puts away 60 foot pole*

Ultimately, I do not believe there is a solution that everyone will be pleased with. I think we need to address what is wrong directly and offer constructive suggestions for change. While I do believe my idea is a good one, I would love to see someone come up with something better, as it would mean a better solution to the veterancy arrangement.

*Back to lurking, kthxnowbaibaikthxbai*

[GG1LL3S]

i assume zerg can make it so each IP can only vote 1x ? however people will reset they're IP's but i think there is a hardware id that is unique for each computer and cant be reset so zerg can make it so each hardware id can only vote 1x ? and for the staff that uses info to promote some1 make a rule for staff that they can't promote a certain player for vtn ? and zerg can log the info messages and log which mod said what ?

[Minerdomera]

Personally, I think all we need is the following:

Only verified accounts can partake in votes(not including alts)

Amount of votes each person has is hidden until the end of the vote

Mods are not allowed to use /zsay to advertise certain players in the votes(they can still advertise certain players in global, because everyone else can anyway)

[masy1]

This is a really good plan for the Veteran votes, Romedy.
GG1ll I have no idea what you're saying.
Also, changing your votes. I don't like that it's possible to change your vote selection when it's about to end.

[Nezark123]

Biggest issue I have with this is as follows:

According to what you say, if I'm following correctly, the top 40 (or so) donors/residents are made into a list, then some of those same people vote?

What keeps 8 of the top 10 who get to nominate, who are all conveniently friends (as most active people are) from pushing each other through each time? It's not hard to come up with reasons to nominate someone who you're friends with, just say "Fun and active player, very helpful, has several hours, no ban history". Someone who's not in that inner group might be just as qualified, if not more so, but they'd be ignored until that whole group had pulled themselves through.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, just wanted to point out a big flaw

[Romedy]

Nezark, that is a fantastic critique and something I had not thought of. I'm not sure how to steer around this.

I can certainly see the "must be in the clique to get vet" argument, but I can also see the opposite side of the argument, too. Is it really fair to say, "Just because you are in this clique you are not deserving?

I suppose you could add a human element to the selection and try to make sure you get a variety of players from different social groups, but this would just introduce the staff bias argument once again.

I do not ahve a good solution to this currently....

[WARKRANK]

MAIN POINTS LISTED AT BOTTOM OF PAGE.

I think about March of last year that I started complaining about the veteran votes and how they were handled. I voiced my concerns about the votes themselves and of how it was obvious that many of them were fixed by other players and their ways of multiple voting. I also had serious concerns about some candidates that were even chosen to begin with since the veteran is supposed to be a player that handles themselves well, sets the example for others to follow, and has shown personal investment within Kreatious and it's online society. Of course none of this is really true about a number of those chosen and some of which even won, it was all about who the voters thought were popular, the cool players, or the "in" crowd. I voiced these concerns same concerns for the last year and a number of Mods have been witness to this but nothing has ever been done to change it so I simply stopped voting when it was obvious a "fixed" candidate would win by a landslide. Now if I was to once again attempt to make a change in this monthly event, I would begin with how the candidates are chosen. They should be more than just the player in Donor who gave money or the player in global who says funny stuff, they should set the example for others to follow and be an ambassador of Kreatious policy that welcomes new players and also attempts to enforce the rules when no Mods are available. They should be active with more than just a few players that are in their clique and should truly stand out as a shining star among the population. As far as the voting goes, I think that each player should only have ONE vote per registered username and that this one vote cannot be changed after cast. By changing the vote to only one vote, the election itself becomes more accurate by not allowing other players to "bury" another player in votes. Another change I would make is that only RSD or above can vote so default "zombie" accounts cannot be sought out and used. One last point that I would like to mention is that if there are no suitable Veteran candidates available, there does not need to be a vote just because it's the next month. Most of what I have presented here is what I knew to be policy but it seemed to just disappear (as far as for VTN candidates) or was ignored, and the rest are new changes I think should be implemented. I have once again voiced what I have been voicing for the last year and believe that if these changes are implemented it will be the solution Kreatious needs.

Main Points:
1. Veteran candidate choosing should be changed to reflect a player that is active within the Kreatious community, but not limited to the "cool" clique, sets the example for others to follow, maintains Kreatious policy with all players and attemptes to correct situations when no Mod is available, and should truly stand out among their peers.

2. Only RSD and above can vote for VTN and "zombie" accounts cannot be used to pad the votes.

3.The players only have ONE vote per registered player name that can only apply to one single candidate.

4. Votes cannot be changed once they have been cast.

5. If no suitable candidates for VTN are available or found, there does not have to be a Veteran vote just because it's the next month.

[Irish_Ninja]

I agree that a change needs to be made.

RSD+? Yes. A thousand times yes. While a default's opinion matters, I feel like it's fair for them to wait the 30-60 hours, for the sake of saving the votes from zombie accounts.

One unchangeable vote? Don't agree with that one. Limited votes (5 out of 10 candidates) maybe, but I feel like it would be hard for me to choose one player, when there are multiple players I feel deserve it, and ties are possible. Being limited to one vote in an instance like that would mean I would not cast a vote.
As for changing votes, I feel like this, again, should be left alone. People change their mind in the lengthy-ish period in which the votes take place. Although, maybe adding a limit to the amount of changes could work. (5 changes total, or you may only vote once per day?)

No suitable candidate = no vote? Yes on this one. I feel like some votes have just gone through in a sort of "we need to fill this months quota" way. We don't NEED veterans for the server to run. If there aren't any players being noticed, sticking out from the crowd, then I don't feel like we need to scope out people who may. It's always been my mindset, that a Veteran doesn't have to try to become Veteran. They just naturally become so, because of the way they act and play in the community. The votes, in that case, are just a formality.

The 40 people list, cutting, pasting, and choosing from the 10 most active RSD and donors, while a decent enough idea, seems to over-complicate the process. Voting is simple, easy, fast, and anyone can do it. It has it's pros and cons, but so far, it seems to work, for the most part. It's the quirks in that system that should be worked out, rather than reinventing the process entirely.

However, I do feel like there's some potential in your idea, as well, and it should be scrapped.

What I feel like would be a good way to use your system, is to select those top 40 players, minus vtn+, and have them submit their selections for candidates. These candidates would be included in the Staff discussion when making the final selection of candidates. Additionally, the same process could be used for 40 *completely random* players in the community. This gives an idea of who the general community thinks would make a good vet, even if they can't be online for 8 hours a day.
Which is another slight issue. I feel that a quality in a good veteran or mod, is a sound, collected, mature personality. And while I've seen it in kids before, it's much more common in adult players. The problem inherent in that, is that adults have jobs, and that restricts activeness. While I try to get some time in daily, I still work 2 jobs in real life. I could never compete with the kids who can get in 8 hours of gameplay every day, if it's all about activeness.

Restricting IPs is a good idea. As far as players who share an internet connection, this does not necessarily rule out them voting. They would just need to be verified as a separate person.

Overall, the changes I could see promoting the vote system are as follows:

- RSD+ only.
- Multiple accounts on one IP must be verified before votes will be counted.
- Limited votes. (quarter or half the number of total candidates)
- Limited changing votes. (Once a day, or 3-5 changes total)
- No forced Veteran Votes.
- Active Players submit candidates, which go on a list, from which staff chat can use to help select candidates.
- Randomly select 40 other players to do the same. (minimum requirement may be 1-5 hours+, and logged in twice that week?)
- Keep the votes invisible until they're done. (Mod+ can still see, to monitor for rigged votes)
- Mods may not "endorse" candidates. (They may still say who they voted for, but not in an 'endorsing' way.)
-

[Shenjtor]

I definitely agree that a change should be made to the system.

RSD+
I think that RSD+ as a rank is an excellent idea. It gives players something to reach for other than just Resident, then Veteran after. It seems like there is a major gap between Resident and Veteran in terms of gaining the rank. I recommend there be a rank called the RSD+, or Resident Ultra, as mentioned in most of the above suggestions, in between Resident and Veteran. This would give Residents a rank to strive to gain based on their merit that they can get a bit easier than Veteran. I also agree that these Resident Ultras should have a say in the voting for Veterans, along with current Veterans and Moderators. These Resident Ultras can serve as the ambassadors for the general populace of Residents and Defaults in terms of their decisions, because it seems Residents and Defaults currently have no say. I think they should have a say, but a rather legitimate one filtered through the RSD+s, rather than just "he giv me stoof, so I like him". I think the requirements for RSD+ should be:

1. 100 hours of playing time on the server
2. They show a level of respect towards the rules and other players
- I say this because it seems that at the moment, Citizen appears to be the current "RSD+", yet I've seen Citizens that don't completely live up to this standard. This requirement would completely overturn the Citizen rank, from a colorful cool rank that has no real meaning to a rank that shows courtesy and respect, and also has an effect on the community.
- See, now we have another problem. Time to embrace and conquer it! How do we determine if a player is kind and respectful to other players and to the rules? I propose that Moderators ask Veterans for their opinion on who should be RSD+, and they should give reliable reasons and specific events that justify these reasons if possible.

Veteran Voting System
I think that the voting system should be a reliable system where Resident Ultras, Veterans, and Moderators can go to determine the month's potential Veterans. Like some people have proposed, I agree that there should be a possibility for NO Veteran to be chosen. Choosing at least one each month just to meet quota results in not-so-good Veterans having their positions. The votes should be IP-moderated and anonymous (except for Mods+, who can see to enforce it). Candidates should not be allowed to perform any kind of political action to increase their chances, such as a drop party. Moderators should also not endorse candidates in any way, other than stating who they voted for.

P.S. I'm still formulating an opinion on the matter, this is sort of my "thoughts on paper".

[Irish_Ninja]

As far as your RSD+ rank idea... Well, there is Citizen. You mentioned it, and the fact that these people don't always live up to the rank. To be completely fair, Citizen is essentially just a rank for people who play regularly for a full year, and for whatever reason, still haven't become Veterans. And if they were ever going to be promoted to Veteran, they'd have been considered and/or voted in by time a year rolls around. As such, it's become *very* common for Citizens to be players who do not fit the mold of an ideal veteran.

The same would apply to RSD+, I feel. I seems like a good idea on paper, but when played out, it just becomes an overcomplicated mess of popularity contests, drama, and hassle for the people who have to select candidates so often.