[vote requested] Rule Change Proposal: Modernizing the Lottery

[quady]

where does this leave us

[quady]

in case of a tie do we try it out this season?

[quady]

"the time is always right to do the right thing” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

[pacers]

Voting is now complete and the proposed rule change will be enacted starting with the 2021 season.

[Joe]

Voting is now complete and the proposed rule change will be enacted starting with the 2021 season.

Wait a sec - we do not have a super majority for the 2021 start date. In fact, we barely even had a majority - as this was clearly a material element of the voting, I would expect it to be subject to the same voting rules for a codified rule change; and if no super majority is reached, I would say the default should be to apply the exact same precedent that we used for the previous material team building rule change we made, which was RFA (3 seasons).

Based on most posts in favor of 2021, the primary logic was “it’s a good rule change let’s do it sooner.” So I would infer from that that those voters would also be ok with the rule change occurring in 2022, relative indifference, and would have been supportive if there were only one date option of 2022. Whereas there are a vote-impacting group of GMs (>9) that would choose to have no rule change in 2021 because they feel it’s a material impact on team building. So in that sense, it seems like there is an underlying supermajority supporting 2022, and not one supporting 2021. And if there weren’t, feels like the default would be the RFA precedent? Just my 2 cents.

[Matt]

Completely agree with the above - while the yes/no decision here was democratically decided, the proposal was not democratically decided on or agreed on and i think was framed in an unfair way

[heimer]

recount !!

[pacers]

Voting is now complete and the proposed rule change will be enacted starting with the 2021 season.

Wait a sec - we do not have a super majority for the 2021 start date. In fact, we barely even had a majority - as this was clearly a material element of the voting, I would expect it to be subject to the same voting rules for a codified rule change; and if no super majority is reached, I would say the default should be to apply the exact same precedent that we used for the previous material team building rule change we made, which was RFA (3 seasons).

Based on most posts in favor of 2021, the primary logic was “it’s a good rule change let’s do it sooner.” So I would infer from that that those voters would also be ok with the rule change occurring in 2022, relative indifference, and would have been supportive if there were only one date option of 2022. Whereas there are a vote-impacting group of GMs (>9) that would choose to have no rule change in 2021 because they feel it’s a material impact on team building. So in that sense, it seems like there is an underlying supermajority supporting 2022, and not one supporting 2021. And if there weren’t, feels like the default would be the RFA precedent? Just my 2 cents.

Sorting through a few things here...

1. First, I super appreciate everyone's feedback and patience as we hammer out this process. The first one of these was bound to be a bit messy, and we'll continually tighten things up as we discover areas that need further refinement.

2. Based on the Democracy Inaction rules written by yours truly, I can see why there's confusion on the runoff being a supermajority or being a simple majority. Moving forward, it will be a supermajority.

3. This proposal itself clearly passes, and the last thing to determine is when it takes effect. In the Democracy Inaction rules (taken directly from the original proposal, which the league voted on), the default timing of the change is for this to be enacted with the 2021 start date.


Based on this situation, and ashes' stated preference that we start this change later rather than sooner, I'd propose that:
1. We enact the change with a 2022 start date
2. I make clear moving forward that moving to a runoff requires a supermajority of votes against the status quo, but that winning the runoff requires a simple majority of the league (which I think is a good compromise between having to do 2 supermajorities and having runoff option win due to a lack of other strong proposals).
3. Future rule changes adhere to the timing stated in the Democracy Inaction rules, unless otherwise stated in the poll options.

Open to other opinions on this. Thanks all.

[quady]

Voting is now complete and the proposed rule change will be enacted starting with the 2021 season.

Wait a sec - we do not have a super majority for the 2021 start date. In fact, we barely even had a majority - as this was clearly a material element of the voting, I would expect it to be subject to the same voting rules for a codified rule change; and if no super majority is reached, I would say the default should be to apply the exact same precedent that we used for the previous material team building rule change we made, which was RFA (3 seasons).

Based on most posts in favor of 2021, the primary logic was “it’s a good rule change let’s do it sooner.” So I would infer from that that those voters would also be ok with the rule change occurring in 2022, relative indifference, and would have been supportive if there were only one date option of 2022. Whereas there are a vote-impacting group of GMs (>9) that would choose to have no rule change in 2021 because they feel it’s a material impact on team building. So in that sense, it seems like there is an underlying supermajority supporting 2022, and not one supporting 2021. And if there weren’t, feels like the default would be the RFA precedent? Just my 2 cents.

Sorting through a few things here...

1. First, I super appreciate everyone's feedback and patience as we hammer out this process. The first one of these was bound to be a bit messy, and we'll continually tighten things up as we discover areas that need further refinement.

2. Based on the Democracy Inaction rules written by yours truly, I can see why there's confusion on the runoff being a supermajority or being a simple majority. Moving forward, it will be a supermajority.

3. This proposal itself clearly passes, and the last thing to determine is when it takes effect. In the Democracy Inaction rules (taken directly from the original proposal, which the league voted on), the default timing of the change is for this to be enacted with the 2021 start date.


Based on this situation, and ashes' stated preference that we start this change later rather than sooner, I'd propose that:
1. We enact the change with a 2022 start date
2. I make clear moving forward that moving to a runoff requires a supermajority of votes against the status quo, but that winning the runoff requires a simple majority of the league (which I think is a good compromise between having to do 2 supermajorities and having runoff option win due to a lack of other strong proposals).
3. Future rule changes adhere to the timing stated in the Democracy Inaction rules, unless otherwise stated in the poll options.

Open to other opinions on this. Thanks all.

Think this is all fair, with the caveat that it doesn't seem right for two commenters to overrule the majority of the last vote. With that being said, the difference in outcomes here is so minimal, ultimately this is a process question more than an actual outcome question. Maybe we can just rubber stamp vote the 2022 date? Or a default number of seasons before implementation?

[pacers]

Wait a sec - we do not have a super majority for the 2021 start date. In fact, we barely even had a majority - as this was clearly a material element of the voting, I would expect it to be subject to the same voting rules for a codified rule change; and if no super majority is reached, I would say the default should be to apply the exact same precedent that we used for the previous material team building rule change we made, which was RFA (3 seasons).

Based on most posts in favor of 2021, the primary logic was “it’s a good rule change let’s do it sooner.” So I would infer from that that those voters would also be ok with the rule change occurring in 2022, relative indifference, and would have been supportive if there were only one date option of 2022. Whereas there are a vote-impacting group of GMs (>9) that would choose to have no rule change in 2021 because they feel it’s a material impact on team building. So in that sense, it seems like there is an underlying supermajority supporting 2022, and not one supporting 2021. And if there weren’t, feels like the default would be the RFA precedent? Just my 2 cents.

Sorting through a few things here...

1. First, I super appreciate everyone's feedback and patience as we hammer out this process. The first one of these was bound to be a bit messy, and we'll continually tighten things up as we discover areas that need further refinement.

2. Based on the Democracy Inaction rules written by yours truly, I can see why there's confusion on the runoff being a supermajority or being a simple majority. Moving forward, it will be a supermajority.

3. This proposal itself clearly passes, and the last thing to determine is when it takes effect. In the Democracy Inaction rules (taken directly from the original proposal, which the league voted on), the default timing of the change is for this to be enacted with the 2021 start date.


Based on this situation, and ashes' stated preference that we start this change later rather than sooner, I'd propose that:
1. We enact the change with a 2022 start date
2. I make clear moving forward that moving to a runoff requires a supermajority of votes against the status quo, but that winning the runoff requires a simple majority of the league (which I think is a good compromise between having to do 2 supermajorities and having runoff option win due to a lack of other strong proposals).
3. Future rule changes adhere to the timing stated in the Democracy Inaction rules, unless otherwise stated in the poll options.

Open to other opinions on this. Thanks all.

Think this is all fair, with the caveat that it doesn't seem right for two commenters to overrule the majority of the last vote. With that being said, the difference in outcomes here is so minimal, ultimately this is a process question more than an actual outcome question. Maybe we can just rubber stamp vote the 2022 date? Or a default number of seasons before implementation?

Agreed that this is more of a process question and we'll tweak it moving forward. I've updated the Forum Guidelines with the below two changes:
- If there is no supermajority voting for a single option in the poll, but multiple non-status-quo options sum up to more votes than the status quo, there will be a runoff of the two options with the most votes. If a runoff option reaches a simple majority, then that change will be enacted; if no runoff option reaches a simple majority, then the change will be rejected.
- Unless specifically otherwise noted in the proposal, in order to give time for the league to adjust, approved changes are enacted two seasons after they are approved. For example, if a Proposed Rule Change is posted in the beginning 2018-19 season, reaches 20 votes by the end of the 2019-20 season, and is not vetoed by Ashes, it will be implemented at the start of the 2021-22 season.

Let me know if any questions/comments on the above - thanks all