HAEV Guidlines (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsored by NC Yankee for Peter and the HAEV

[Antonio the Sixth]

I must say I have serious concerns toward those guidelines, as it will make the HAEV's work too slow to have any impact on the game. I would ask the honorable HAEV members to review those gidelines a bit before putting them on vote.
But of course I'm totally powerless...

[Peter]

I should have to disagree with Antonio's characterisation of these guidelines.

I believe his principal problem relates to the 48 hour clause - this clause does not prevent a succession of quick votes as I think he believes. The 48 hour clause is to prevent the HAEV from holding a vote very quickly after an initial nomination so that any opposing views can be heard. It does not mean that the HAEV must give 48 hours sole consideration to each nomination.

I would interpret the following events as totally acceptable and within the rules

Hour 0 - Voter A nominated
Hour 1 - Voter B nominated
Hour 48 - Voter A vote opened
Hour 50 - Voter A vote closed
Hour 51 - Voter B vote opened
etc.

The key thing here is that 48 hours have passed between the initial nomination and a vote opening.

[Barnes]

I should have to disagree with Antonio's characterisation of these guidelines.

I believe his principal problem relates to the 48 hour clause - this clause does not prevent a succession of quick votes as I think he believes. The 48 hour clause is to prevent the HAEV from holding a vote very quickly after an initial nomination so that any opposing views can be heard. It does not mean that the HAEV must give 48 hours sole consideration to each nomination.

I would interpret the following events as totally acceptable and within the rules

Hour 0 - Voter A nominated
Hour 1 - Voter B nominated
Hour 48 - Voter A vote opened
Hour 50 - Voter A vote closed
Hour 51 - Voter B vote opened
etc.

The key thing here is that 48 hours have passed between the initial nomination and a vote opening.

I agree with Peter on this. The 48 hours ensures that we give a fair hearing, and I don't think it will bog down our actions.

[Purple State]

To further address Antonio's comments, I don't think the HAEV should be that efficient of a mechanism in the first place. It's intent, in my view, is not to quickly wipe away half of Atlasia, but rather, to carefully evaluate certain users, seek to bring them into the fold, and if that is not possible, remove them from the voter roll.

[Barnes]

To further address Antonio's comments, I don't think the HAEV should be that efficient of a mechanism in the first place. It's intent, in my view, is not to quickly wipe away half of Atlasia, but rather, to carefully evaluate certain users, seek to bring them into the fold, and if that is not possible, remove them from the voter roll.

If I may speak for the other two, that is how we also view it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I should have to disagree with Antonio's characterisation of these guidelines.

I believe his principal problem relates to the 48 hour clause - this clause does not prevent a succession of quick votes as I think he believes. The 48 hour clause is to prevent the HAEV from holding a vote very quickly after an initial nomination so that any opposing views can be heard. It does not mean that the HAEV must give 48 hours sole consideration to each nomination.

I would interpret the following events as totally acceptable and within the rules

Hour 0 - Voter A nominated
Hour 1 - Voter B nominated
Hour 48 - Voter A vote opened
Hour 50 - Voter A vote closed
Hour 51 - Voter B vote opened
etc.

The key thing here is that 48 hours have passed between the initial nomination and a vote opening.

That still means we can't eliminate more than 1 user every 48 hours, and since there will certainly not be only successful elimination votes, I doubt we'll have more than 5-10 removals per months. The zombie system is a massive one, concerning dozens of Atlasians, and before you will manage to erase it, new zombies will have been recruited, making all this useless. As I have proposed, you should consider using a slot system and consider several members at the same time.

[Peter]

I should have to disagree with Antonio's characterisation of these guidelines.

I believe his principal problem relates to the 48 hour clause - this clause does not prevent a succession of quick votes as I think he believes. The 48 hour clause is to prevent the HAEV from holding a vote very quickly after an initial nomination so that any opposing views can be heard. It does not mean that the HAEV must give 48 hours sole consideration to each nomination.

I would interpret the following events as totally acceptable and within the rules

Hour 0 - Voter A nominated
Hour 1 - Voter B nominated
Hour 48 - Voter A vote opened
Hour 50 - Voter A vote closed
Hour 51 - Voter B vote opened
etc.

The key thing here is that 48 hours have passed between the initial nomination and a vote opening.

That still means we can't eliminate more than 1 user every 48 hours, and since there will certainly not be only successful elimination votes, I doubt we'll have more than 5-10 removals per months. The zombie system is a massive one, concerning dozens of Atlasians, and before you will manage to erase it, new zombies will have been recruited, making all this useless. As I have proposed, you should consider using a slot system and consider several members at the same time.

In my view the system we have put in place allows the following to happen within the rules:

Hour 0 - Voter A nominated
Hour 1 - Voter B nominated
Hour 2 - Voter C nominated
Hour 3 - Voter D nominated
Hour 48 - Voter A vote opened
Hour 50 - Voter A vote closed
Hour 51 - Voter B vote opened
Hour 52 - Voter B vote closed
Hour 53 - Voter C vote opened
Hour 60 - Voter C vote closed
Hour 65 - Voter D vote opened
Hour 72 - Voter D vote closed.

In 72 hours, we deleted 4 voters. Like Purple State, I do find that it may be too hasty to consider voters in that short succession, but the key is that there must be 48 hours between a voter being nominated and vote opening on that voter, not 48 hours between the previous voter on the list being completed and the next vote opening.

I'm not sure if I can make this point any clearer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, that seems fine. Sorry if I read wrong.

[Peter]

Can this come to a vote please?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can this come to a vote please?

The Politburo passes it, four votes to none.

[Peter]

Can this come to a vote please?

The Politburo passes it, four votes to none.

Who would the People's Commissar like us to delete from the voter rolls?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The final vote on this bill has begun. Senators, Please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN

Can this come to a vote please?

The Politburo passes it, four votes to none.

If you don't stop spamming the Senate boards, I will pass you someplace alright. PM me if you want to know where.

[Fritz]

Abstain.  I still think the HAEV was a bad idea, so I'm not going to cast a vote on how they are conducted.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

Nay, I wish I would have spoken out against section 3 sooner. I will be willing to re-introduce this without that section, though, if this fails.

[Hash]

AYE

[Badger]

Abstain, for much the same reason as Fritz. While I initially supported (with reservations) the formation of the HAEV, and think we have about the best group of people imaginable serving on that panel, I'm increasingly changed in my view about it being a good idea despite the very best of intentions behind its creation and the high quality of the people implementing its rules.

[Peter]

The final vote on this bill has begun. Senators, Please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN

Can I just note that this is a 2/3 majority vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Abstain, for much the same reason as Fritz. While I initially supported (with reservations) the formation of the HAEV, and think we have about the best group of people imaginable serving on that panel, I'm increasingly changed in my view about it being a good idea despite the very best of intentions behind its creation and the high quality of the people implementing its rules.

Can I ask you why ?

[Badger]

Abstain, for much the same reason as Fritz. While I initially supported (with reservations) the formation of the HAEV, and think we have about the best group of people imaginable serving on that panel, I'm increasingly changed in my view about it being a good idea despite the very best of intentions behind its creation and the high quality of the people implementing its rules.

Can I ask you why ?

Sure. Simply put I'm increasingly more concerned about ejecting voters who's only "crime" is that they don't often post in the Fantasy Elections or Government boards, even though they're active in the rest of the forum and/or have been active in Atlasia in the past. I want to see Atlasia grow in numbers and activity, and I've come to believe the hunt for "zombie voters" may cause more long term harm than good. I do not want to see Atlasia consumed by the same few dozen chronic posters (myself included), and would rather risk a few inactive occasional forum posters voting than make this place increasingly unwelcome to newbies or (more importantly) people who want to casually follow Fantasy Elections and Government and periodically vote.

Again, absolute best of intentions in forming it, Antonio, but I fear the cure is worse than any real disease. I could be convinced otherwise depending on how the HAEV actually implements voter expulsion, but for now I'm wary.

I'd prefer to see action against trolls at this point more than zombies, though the forum seems to have starting regulating itself more strictly there recently.....

And before anyone wants to chime in, no, electoral politics has zilch to do with it. I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Again, I'm not hardcore resolved in my opposition. I want to see the HAEV in action. But my concerns are currently tangible enough to abstain from this measure at this time.

[segwaystyle2012]

I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Hold it right there...

Last election I would have been considered a zombie, Dallasfan would have been considered a zombie, FallenMorgan would have been considered a zombie, etc.

Now none of us are zombies. That is the purpose of the Populares: we are by nature anti-zombie, and our solution is to increase activity, not filter out those who we have a vendetta against.

Looking back, JCP candidates totaled more zombies than Mint did. That's not debatable.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Badger]

I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Hold it right there...

Last election I would have been considered a zombie, Dallasfan would have been considered a zombie, FallenMorgan would have been considered a zombie, etc.

Now none of us are zombies. That is the purpose of the Populares: we are by nature anti-zombie, and our solution is to increase activity, not filter out those who we have a vendetta against.

That's kind of my point, Segway. A number of voters in the last election, including yourself, that conventional wisdom then labeled "zombies" have since become active productive parts of Atlasia. Like you I want to concentrate on getting people more active in the game rather than filtering out people who may have something to contribute.

My only point about so-called zombies supporting the ARC last time was simply to pre-empt any inevitable cynics who assumed my shift in support away from the HAEV has to do with electoral politics rather than my vision of what Atlasia should be, that's all.

[Barnes]

I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Hold it right there...

Last election I would have been considered a zombie, Dallasfan would have been considered a zombie, FallenMorgan would have been considered a zombie, etc.

Now none of us are zombies. That is the purpose of the Populares: we are by nature anti-zombie, and our solution is to increase activity, not filter out those who we have a vendetta against.

Looking back, JCP candidates totaled more zombies than Mint did. That's not debatable.

Yeah, don't think so.

You would have been a newbie, and you've obviously had more than ten posts in the past two months (that's in the Atlasia Section).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you opposed the HAEV, then introduce legislation repealing it. However voting against this is not a way to express your opposition to that body.


AYE