Elections 2004 - Time to Vote

[gameboy9]

Alright - it's time to vote. So... what say ye?

YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE REQUIREMENTS TO VOTE:

1. You MAY NOT vote if your first recording wasn't submitted until after August 1st.
2. You must submit a recording for AT LEAST 1 % of the total number of MAME games in order to vote. (48 games)
3. You must submit at least one recording during the months of DECEMBER or JANUARY.
4. A majority of editors allow you the right to vote, which overrides rules 1-3.

*** EDITORS: IF YOU FAIL TO MEET RULES 1-3 - YOU STILL MUST GET A MAJORITY OF EDITORS TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO VOTE - NO EXCEPTIONS ***

*** You must vote from goldengameboy@yahoo.com - and it must come from the e-mail address claimed on your MARP PROFILE, or it doesn't count. You may change your vote as many times as you need until the deadline occurs. ***

THESE ARE THE POSITIONS FOR WHICH YOU CAN VOTE FOR, AND THEIR NOMINEES:

Regulation:
Weehawk
Pat Laffaye

Tournament:
Skito
Frankie

Knockout :
Frankie
Metrackle
Destructor

WCC :
Phil Lamat

Time Trial :
Gameboy9

IN ADDITION - ALL editors are up for a confidence vote. If any editor fails to achieve 50% confidence will be removed from editorship for a period no less than six months.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. If an editor doesn't get five votes for/against confidence, that person is still an editor. 2. If more than two editors fail to achieve 50% confidence, then the two worst editors are removed from office and the rest remain as editors.

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RULES, PLEASE POST HERE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE NOMINEES OR THE EDITORS THEMSELVES, PLEASE ASK THEM HERE AS WELL.

And the most important rule...

THIS IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST!!! You should vote for the person best suited for the job.

Thanks for enduring my shouting. And may the best person win.

All votes are due by February 18, 2359 GMT

[LN2]

can you supply the list of editors so no one is overlooked for getting a confidence(or lack of confidence) vote? thx.

[***PL***]

can you supply the list of editors so no one is overlooked for getting a confidence(or lack of confidence) vote? thx.

Rick, the list of the 7 editors is under "Staff of MARP" under the pulldown of the top nav bar.

[Buttermaker]

4. Exceptions to vote can be petitioned to any editor. They must vote immediately on the petition. If the petitioner receives a majority vote of the editors, the exception is granted. Editors can immediately grant petitions at any time by a majority vote.

Hello Editors, I am petitioning for an exception to vote.

[gameboy9]

BTW voters - The knockout coordinators has ONE chairman - so signify who you want to be chairman on that one.

[gameboy9]

Also - a request to the editors:

Can you please address Buttermaker's request within three days? I know - not a lot of time - but he should have ample time to vote if you're going to give him the right to vote.

Thanks.

[The TJT]

2. You must submit a recording for AT LEAST 1 % of the total number of MAME games in order to vote. (48 games)

Are clones included?
If you are really saying somebody has to submit at 48 different games, then I believe I have no right to vote. I sincerely think I should have right to vote...Being here x years now, quite active too...

If so...then be it so, not so important for me anyway.

48 games is not so little if we are talking about decent recordings. Anybody can play 48 games one day and submit all those scrappy scores same day.
Then again rule that... must have submitted in December or Janyary is not so good either...Someone could submit only because knowing elections are coming...Did you do that GB?
Not all of us are so active all year round with submitting...I value playing Tron for 3 months and submitting TG record more than 50 normal submissions.

To say something positive...I think rule that somebody have to have submitted before certain date is ok, that prevents some vote leeching.
Actually it's only rule we really need...

How about multiple accounts. I have other account called "Todo"...u get it?... to do...
How about WRX2 then?

Then there are other sorts of activity at Marp also, not only submitting inps....Confirming/editing scores...Taking part and following conversation here etc....

[The TJT]

I take something back from previous writing...It actually is important be able to vote for regulation coordinator and confidence vote for editors.

I just believe I should have right for that.

Thanks,

Tommi

Edited P.S....

Umm..1% of all games is 48, then 100% is 4800...that must include clones, maybe splits too...

[Weehawk]

Tommi is absolutely right.

I have 64 recordings at MARP. Some of them I have avoiding deleting solely because I want to stay over the 1% limit...and you never know how many games they are going to add in the next version.

That is wrong.

I can only assume that they were far fewer games emulated when that rule was first written.

MARP's Rule #1 states, in part:Everyone has a say at MARP, whether you're 1st on the leaderboard or 101st, and whether you've been at MARP for four years or for forty seconds

But Tommi and Buttermaker aren't eligible to vote unless an exception is made?

This rule needs to go. Now.

I think an editor should start a poll.

I do think that Butter should have to give us his real name first though.

[Chad]

i'll ok BM for voting, i can't believe you didn't make a recording before august, or was it the 48 recording rule? 48 does seem like a lot but i mean there are a lot of games to choose 48 from, and we have to have SOME activity rating for voting i would think, not sure what the correct level should be set at though.

[gameboy9]

Well... these rules are over three years old... perhaps change is in order. But I originally made up the rules, therefore, I should explain where I was coming from:

1. The six month rule avoids the mass registration bit.
2. The 1% rule (which includes clones!) indicated that you weren't just going to submit one recording and then vote. Yes... I think the limit was 20 when the rule was invented.
3. The two month for one recording rule indicated that you were still active at MARP.

But in case they didn't work out - I added the fourth rule, to permit the editors to let people vote.

These rules were created as an OBJECTIVE way to filter out the regulars from the vote leachers.

---------------------

These rules ignored forum participation - mostly because it wasn't as active as it is nowadays... although... we could easily mix-in forum participation to the formula.

---------------------

Want to change the rules and let it affect the current election? It's only fair for me to tell you how:

1. You have to call a 7-day vote to nullify the current election, where 2/3 of the general public must approve of. Why? The election has started, so it has to use the voting rules that were in effect when it started.
2. You have to call a 7-day vote for the rule changes... which also requires a 2/3 vote of the general public.

Both votes can, and probably should from Weehawk's perspective, happen at the same time.

Tread carefully though; if the first vote passes, I'll be forced to start the elections FROM THE BEGINNING.

If only the second vote passes, the rules WILL take effect in the next election.

Any more questions on what I explained are welcome, as always.

[The TJT]

Ok, as clones are included I have right to vote.

GB9 could you please add to your original post names of the editors. I could also do it here, but it's not my job.

Also I would like to say that you should not accept any votes saying: "leave everything as is"...without even mentioning the names....that's really lame imo
...You wouldn't go to vote in your country writing something like that...

I find only thing not very good carried out this year at Marp is difficulty taking action against autofire cheaters etc deliberate cheating.
Imo we would need little more active regulation coordinator now. Nothing wrong how Pat manages game splits, adding new games etc(not sure if they are regulation coordinator posts anyway).
Seems just like nobody really knows whose area is it to kill cheating etc.

Im just saying these rules are not very good now. 48 games is too much imo. 2 month before voting submission is so-so...I don't submit every 2 months, sometimes play more, sometimes less.
August rule is ok---but it is against marp rule number one---, as is editor-right to give somebody right to vote ok(nevertheless editor should not give that right here public, it's little immoral...that's like giving right to vote yes for himself). But these are only my opinions.

These marp rules are most done by you Pete or previous rules coordinator QT(who turned out to be quite a dictator in that manner..which was the reason I have objected for selecting anybody for regulation cordinator).
So these rules are carved into stone, but are made without voting about them...The base of Marp rules is who had access to update rules page has made them...with some discussion of course, maybe little voting too, but very little, and only afterwards.

If you make a rule about 2/3...do we need 2/3 to overrule that

Nobody wants to start over the voting I assume.
I really don't see need for longwinded conversation and voting for changing these rules. What bugs me is GB writing rules in previous post regarding how to change rules he made, 555.

Just change the outdated 48 game rule to 20 games, dammit

TJT

[Weehawk]

1. The six month rule avoids the mass registration bit.
2. The 1% rule (which includes clones!) indicated that you weren't just going to submit one recording and then vote. Yes... I think the limit was 20 when the rule was invented.
3. The two month for one recording rule indicated that you were still active at MARP.

But in case they didn't work out - I added the fourth rule, to permit the editors to let people vote.

And I agree with your reasoning on all points, but I don't necessarily think requiring 48 (or even 20) recordings is a good idea. I think we would be better off without a minimum recording number at all. The six month rule and the two month rule would suffice for me.

Both votes can, and probably should from Weehawk's perspective, happen at the same time.

I'm eligible either way. And I'm sure the editors will make whatever exceptions are appropriate for this election. I just don't think it should be necessary in future, and that we're better off without that part of the rule.

[LN2]

MARP's Rule #1 states, in part:Everyone has a say at MARP, whether you're 1st on the leaderboard or 101st, and whether you've been at MARP for four years or for forty seconds

...having a say means exactly that. it doesn't mean you can vote. Voting is separate privilege from "having a say".

I would hope that people who have posted beyond a certain #posts would be eligible also.

I am sure there are many "core" MARP members that didn't upload anything in December and January. They still should have the right to vote. They might have been active in the forums and even in at #marp yet just not had time to play or haven't gotten scores they felt were worthy of submitting.

[***PL***]

I mean this IS SILLY. As an editor, I can vote to let someone else vote, but under current rules I can't even vote myself!!!

I would propose that one is eligible to vote if (not meeting voting criteria) they:

1) Have at least 20 INP files submitted to MARP

-- OR --

2) Have at least 20 posts made to MARP Forums

-- OR --

3) Have been registered at MARP for at least two (2) full years

The editors could start an editor's poll to make this happen now, otherwise we could recommend and implement for next year's election.

Pat