/tg/Station 13

The position of "Headmin" has come to mean far too much without the checks and balances afforded by having a group of them. The current state is that of a "leader for life" with total power over policy decisions and administrative control. This is purely by chance, having resulted from the other two dropping off the face of the Earth. For good or ill, I present that this causes stagnation and the promotion of a status-quo which provides the current holder free-reign to abuse that authority. This thread is not designed to call into question the abilities or judgement of a particular administrator. It is simply to judge the validity of what "Headmins" have evolved into. Not by conscious edict, but by circumstance.

Our elections or the abolishment of this system in favor of a different one (something that has been discussed both publically and privately for a number of months previous to this thread) are long overdue. The goal here in short is to include the public's opinion on the current system, the possible replacements, and to promote awareness regarding the issue so that we might see some sort of change or evaluation come to fruition sooner. Several admins, myself included, would be very interested to hear your opinions.

Among the proposed alternatives, which is by no means a comprehensive or official list, are...

1) A triumvirate selected with (1) decided by SoS, (1) decided by the public and (1) decided by admins.

2) Removal of Headmins in their entirety

3) Elections, be they public or private, to re-evaluate the current candidates.

And remember folks, please do try and keep it civil. I flubbed that pretty hard already by myself.

I think the first suggestion is rather compelling.

"I literally cannot be removed from power" -HotelBravoLima

The first is easily the best option here.

I think the first is both a fair choice as well as a choice that we can expediently see become real given the situation.

It's easy enough to run a public vote and an admin vote and resolve those two candidates, then hand the names over to Scaredy for him to decide a third.
It's the least work and decision making stress for each involved party.

I'd assume that, if headmin roles are still a concept people want to adhere to, the final three can decide amongst themselves who does what?
It's been so long since I think that even existed as a concept maybe they'll just abandon it entirely.

First option definitely sounds nice. Preferably with periodic elections and limits on consecutive terms.

Arete wrote:First option definitely sounds nice. Preferably with periodic elections and limits on consecutive terms.

Proposal: Headmins headmin for six months - Elections start second week of January and June. Maximum consecutive term is one year, if the admin logs less than N hours per week for a month his slot is up for grabs.

im torn on the idea of limited consecutive terms
on one hand, i feel that if someone is shit theyre not going to get the position back in a voting system
on the other hand, i dont have faith in the ability of certain groups to realize who is and isnt shit

Psyentific wrote: Proposal: Headmins headmin for six months

Reality: The first "re-election" vote has been overdue for a year now.
There was a mission statement when we did this thing the first time that there would be shorter terms and whatnot.

That was before 2/3 headmins had to return to their home planets or whatever, and shit got real.

While it's a good idea to have some idea of a term, I'm just trying to say we should focus on the immediate election and avoid making promises history has shown are really hard to keep.

Option 1 seems to be the best one of the three.

If there is to be a time limit to being a headmin, I think one year is good before new elections and the current ones can be elected again.

The first one sounds like a great idea.

The current administration is fine. All complaints are from disloyal separatists who desire power for themselves.

This thread will now be purged and all who have posted will be humanely removed.

The HBeLyuminati wishes you a pleasant and obedient day.

Option 1 seems fine.

Voting should be implemented ingame and tied to at least x time played on server ckeys. It could be left running as a roundstart notification for a few weeks for all relevant ckeys that have not yet voted. Results would still have to be checked for regular multikeying players possibly voting more than once.

Perhaps even 2 rounds of voting to first get rid of the bulk of candidates and then duke it out among the x remaining. Anyone should be free to candidate for the position elected by public. Poll could include clickable candidates that would show their application or something.

Personally I would like results be made public in form of which ckey vote for which option, but I'm guessing people are touchy about that and numbers would suffice.

I also don't think limits on consecutive elections make sense in this case, if someone gets repeatedly voted in then he is what the majority wants to represent them.

First option is great, admin vote can be duked out on the forums. Player vote ought to be done ingame and I agree with UtterNewbie that first past the post isn't the most ideal, but rather one poll should be used to get the major candidates and the second poll should be whoever gets 20+ votes or what have you.

But also what Sticky said.

The problem is actually having headmin elections and then acting upon the results before one and possibly two of the frontrunners quit, which is what has happened since the last time we had this rodeo. Which is up to SoS and there's basically nothing we can do so it will never happen

Vote Bluespace for headmin when?

Bluespace wrote:Vote Bluespace for headmin when?

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

I've been a backer of Glorious Leader power structure and as it stands, we pretty much have it. All that would need be done is regular elections every 6 months.

Poll please I hate expressing my opinions through words and posting in general

UtterNewbie wrote:I also don't think limits on consecutive elections make sense in this case, if someone gets repeatedly voted in then he is what the majority wants to represent them.

The incumbent will always have an advantage, whether because of sycophants or because of apathetic voters that just like pressing buttons. Removing the incumbent option puts all the remaining candidates at equal standing and can result in a choice that more accurately reflects the wishes of the voting base.

Arete wrote:

UtterNewbie wrote:I also don't think limits on consecutive elections make sense in this case, if someone gets repeatedly voted in then he is what the majority wants to represent them.

The incumbent will always have an advantage, whether because of sycophants or because of apathetic voters that just like pressing buttons. Removing the incumbent option puts all the remaining candidates at equal standing and can result in a choice that more accurately reflects the wishes of the voting base.

But it also prevents a genuinely good headmin remain in a position where everyone loves them.

The first Admin to give me head becomes Headmin.


EDIT: OKay that was a shitpost. TO be honest, I like HBL. But a term system probably should happen.

Perhaps since we do just have HBL, perhaps we could just implement the system after the next election?

I like first option, it's like the three branches of government but for a videogame. It would be interesting to see how it plays out from a psychological standpoint

A limit to the number of terms a person can serve makes sense in governance because there's an implicit danger to population in having a single leader become entrenched in a democracy. In a system that's designed to keep itself balanced by limiting the reach of any single individual, having a person sit as the head honcho for too long gives them time to skew those systems in their favor.

Headmin is, ostensibly, a meritocracy. That is, people who get elected to the position do so for their worth to the group. What they have done, can do, promise to do, stand for...whatever. There's a call to action attached to their candidacy.

A president who doesn't accomplish something or screws something up...there's so many circumstances surrounding something that it's hard to say "we have more taxes or a higher deficit and it's all that guy's fault". So you can politic and point fingers and such.

An admin who just consistently fucks things up and gets nothing done or abuses their position is a lot more obvious and easy to point out. If HBL was just throwing terrible bans around left and right and giving his friends traitor every round we would know that and know that he was a bad headmin.

For those reasons I don't think limiting the number of terms a person could serve is a really good idea. We could wind up in a situation where we have great ex-headmins with great records and experience that we would pass over just to let a new guy try it out? That's innefficient. It's a poor use of resources and people.

If we rewind the clock two years or so, we never would've even had or wanted elections in the first place if the headmins of the time were still active and doing what we were asking of them.

For that matter, I don't think the renewed push for elections is anything against HBL. It's simply that decisions that fall to a headmin to make, major rules and policy changes, admin-to-admin conflict resolution, etc., are better made by a committee than a single individual. And again, it's not to say that HBL is doing anything wrong or making bad decisions, just that it's bad form to only have one person with one perspective making all those decisions.

An0n3 wrote:For those reasons I don't think limiting the number of terms a person could serve is a really good idea. We could wind up in a situation where we have great ex-headmins with great records and experience that we would pass over just to let a new guy try it out? That's innefficient. It's a poor use of resources and people.

To be clear, I'd only support limits on consecutive terms. There wouldn't be anything wrong with two admins passing a headmin title back and forth between each other indefinitely, and I think we have at least six headmin-worthy admins here, so I don't see a term limit forcing us to use someone with significantly lower competence.

Let me put the case for term limits this way: No one wants to be the first guy to place a vote against someone who still might be the boss next term. There will undeniably be a bias toward re-electing the previous term's headmins. The big question here is whether the differences in competence between the top ~6 headmin candidates is more significant than the decrease in competence an incumbent headmin will be able to show without getting replaced. That's the factor that needs to be weighed when deciding whether to implement term limits.

An0n3 wrote:Headmin is, ostensibly, a meritocracy. That is, people who get elected to the position do so for their worth to the group. What they have done, can do, promise to do, stand for...whatever. There's a call to action attached to their candidacy.

Its a popularity contest, CLICK BUTTONS RECEIVE HEADMIN WHO THE FUCK EVEN IS THIS GUY: THE STORY OF HBL

If it was just a popularity contest why did Intigracy, Deuryn, or myself get so many votes?

Even if it was just a popularity contest, of the three who got elected, look who stuck around and actually did the work. If we even want to acknowledge that perspective for a minute, and HBL was only voted in because he was popular, then HOLY SHIT WE SHOULD ONLY CARE ABOUT POPULARITY BECAUSE HE WORKED OUT THE BEST.

Will there be a difference between the triumvate members? Or do they just act as checks and balances?

You mean in terms of them having specific jobs?

Well, it wouldn't hurt to establish a separation of powers to make things a bit more organized, yeah.

The point is that they have different opinions and ideas and reaching a consensus will hopefully be better than one person dictating things, not to have each headmin do a different thing.

It really depends how they decide to organize themselves, previously we tried to have each headmin assigned to a specific duty but it kinda fell apart.

An0n3 wrote:If it was just a popularity contest why did Intigracy, Deuryn, or myself get so many votes?

B-b-because Intigracy was as much of an attention whore for votes as HBL was? Seriously, if you saw any of Intigracy's FUCK THE ADMINS I'M ON YOUR SIDE GUYS posts you'd realize he just tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator for votes. People STILL like him, too.

Avoiding that kind of poll for these next headmins would be nice. I'm not a fan of playerbase polls, but I like the idea proposed in OP where only one admin is decided by playerbase vote. That way the playerbase gets an headmin they like and can blame for everything, the admins get a headmin they like and can blame for everything, and scaredy gets an admin he can keep in touch with personally that he thinks can do the job.

Intig was an excellent headmin. He appealed to the players, because guess what. This game is for the players, not the admin's enjoyment. Which people seem to have forgotten lately, for example, name policy, bans for harmless 'netspeak', etc...

Once again, pretty funny to see Paprika accuse any other person of being an attention whore...

What's the order of the polls/decisions?

What happens if all three parties agree on the same person to be their headmin? Do we all just pack our bags and agree they're the one true god we require?

I say we go:

1) public vote (will cause the most shitstorm and be the longest vote overall)
2) private adminbus vote from the remaining list of candidates
3) private scaredy pick from remaining list of candidates, if he can't choose one for whatever reason you can simply do another private adminbus vote from remaining

Then reveal all 3 and set the date for another tri-poll like this for next year.

QuartzCrystal wrote:What's the order of the polls/decisions?

What happens if all three parties agree on the same person to be their headmin? Do we all just pack our bags and agree they're the one true god we require?

Yes.

We need to get a thread up where people can put in their candidate statements.

Or, if we're looking at three headmins - one Scaredy choice, one adminbus choice, one player choice.

Jordie0608 wrote:[...] previously we tried to have each headmin assigned to a specific duty but it kinda fell apart.

Spot on. I'd have to say Ely/Inti/HBL ended up doing more "Head of Bans" work than that actual head towards the end of this setup.

QuartzCrystal wrote:Perhaps since we do just have HBL, perhaps we could just implement the system after the next election?

Provided the next election ever actually shows up that seems fine with most people. Should we stick with a single Headmin until that (second) time though?

paprika wrote: Public -> Admin -> SoS

One rep from each category is the most popular choice just based on this thread. (Suggested by Elyina and others in the past, far as credit for the idea goes)

Really stands out as the better solution, going from broadest scope to most narrow. At least in theory the big hassle is out of the way first. If Scaredy is totally satisfied with the Headmins that come out of the process it's a good solution, we don't necessarily need the third. At the same time he gets the ability to make sure someone he feels represents his interests as the Host is in power if he's shaky on the first two.

At the end of the day though what matters most is moving the entire system forward. If HBL is voted back in, that's great. We simply must avoid becoming complacent with the people presently in power, whether that's now or however long down the line when this hopefully all becomes relevant again. I'll try and point SoS in this direction; excellent discussion and one that proves it can all be handled without drama.

Now that we've all more or less agreed on what to do, it's worth noting that we'd have to actually get SoS to sign onto this and actually hold the elections.

QuartzCrystal wrote:Now that we've all more or less agreed on what to do, it's worth noting that we'd have to actually get SoS to sign onto this and actually hold the elections.

All hope lost.

Bluespace wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote:Now that we've all more or less agreed on what to do, it's worth noting that we'd have to actually get SoS to sign onto this and actually hold the elections.

All hope lost.

Your avatar is so appropriate.

Bluespace wrote:All hope lost.

In a twist of irony, he's actually here as we speak! Let's keep it focused on the subject at hand, guys.

I would give up my appointment in order for the coders to name a head admin.

How do you suggest that we allow the players to elect their head admin?

scaredofshadows wrote:I would give up my appointment in order for the coders to name a head admin.

How do you suggest that we allow the players to elect their head admin?

Oh wow.

And in game poll seems to be the best option? After the nomination period?

scaredofshadows wrote:I would give up my appointment in order for the coders to name a head admin.

Sounds solid to me. I've heard plenty of tales about when "Headmins" and "Headcoders" were one inseparable entity.

Agreeing with Quartz on this one too. Holding anything but nominations on the forums leads to inevitable accusations of "excluding" the playerbase.

Candidate thread when?

In game poll is probably best in terms of vote count.

You know instead of SoS hand picking a headmin, we could have the maintainers of the codebase pick a headmin so admins could have more integration with the codebase with one of the pre-existing codermins

So it'd be like 1) Public vote 2) adminbus vote 3) maintainerbus vote

Idk, admins in the past have expressed displeasure with coderbus and how it interferes with their job personally, I don't know if this is the case for all admins though

paprika wrote:You know instead of SoS hand picking a headmin, we could have the maintainers of the codebase pick a headmin so admins could have more integration with the codebase with one of the pre-existing codermins

meet

scaredofshadows wrote:I would give up my appointment in order for the coders to name a head admin.

Weird then yeah just do that so the coders can have a devil's advocate in #conspiracybus