[vote requested] Rule Change Proposal: Modernizing the Lottery
Posted: October 3rd, 2024, 9:45 am
where does this leave us
Welcome to BBL!
https://simleaguenirvana.com/
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).
Sorting through a few things here...Joe wrote: ↑October 4th, 2024, 10:48 amWait 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.
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 wrote: ↑October 6th, 2024, 9:21 pmSorting through a few things here...Joe wrote: ↑October 4th, 2024, 10:48 amWait 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.
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.
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:quady wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 12:36 pmThink 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 wrote: ↑October 6th, 2024, 9:21 pmSorting through a few things here...Joe wrote: ↑October 4th, 2024, 10:48 am
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.
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.