#Vote Requirement For Community Ideas

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

glossy jetty
#

Change the upvote requirement within the ideas section to better reflect community sentiment.

Currently all ideas that meet the 25 upvote threshold must go to a Illuvium Community Council vote if the sponsor decides to follow through with it. Downvotes are not taken into consideration, meaning that an idea with 25 upvotes and 100 downvotes must still go to a council vote.

Looking for community feedback before drafting up a proposal. There are at least 3 possible routes to take here.

-No change, keep as is.

-Required proposal vote only if X upvotes > downvotes.
Example: 25 upvotes above downvotes
30 upvotes, 5 downvotes = ICC vote
30 upvotes, 6 downvotes = No vote required

-Required proposal vote only if X ratio upvotes to downvotes.
Example: >50% Upvote, Minimum Upvotes 25
30 upvotes, 29 downvotes = ICC vote
30 upvotes, 30 downvotes = No vote required
(This would be my suggestion, with 40% Upvote)

Note: This should not be a requirement for a vote, but allows the ICC to make a decision on whether a vote is necessary.

The Illuvium Community Council is responsible for voting on proposals that the community feels strongly about. Taking downvotes into consideration can help weed out ideas that the community majority is not in favor of. This will become increasingly important as community engagement increases as we look forward to open beta.

sonic vine
glossy jetty
elder sluice
#

I like the concept, yet I think the ratio of non action should be more. Like perhaps 55%
A 50/50 split in my mind is not enough to stop something going to a proposal.

Possible issues I see.

  • groups of people with their own agenda down voting without due cause. Yet the same can be said for the opposite.
  • what if the council/core team possibly likes an idea yet the percentage of the community who take the time to vote don't? Would it be overruled?
    How do you see the community reacting to this.
  • currently a proposal can be initiated by ILV holders that Verify? without going to feedback/ideas first. This creates an equity issue.
    What makes holders have this right over those that don't.
    If these proposals went to feedback/ideas first I would be fine with it.
#

I'm not keen on the first idea.

untold mesa
glossy jetty
# elder sluice I like the concept, yet I think the ratio of non action should be more. Like per...

I agree 50/50 should require action. Maybe 55 or 60% downvote could be the threshold.
I don’t think non-action is required if the threshold is not hit, I think the threshold should be there for required action.
Whether you start in the ideas section or go straight to a proposal there is still a requirement that needs to be met before a vote occurs.

This is more of a QOL change. If the community sentiment is so bad it likely means the vote won’t go pass through the ICC anyways. So why be required to draft a proposal and vote if something that won’t be passed in the first place.

elder sluice
glossy jetty
# elder sluice I definitely get that and absolutely agree. I feel it needs to apply to everyon...

When you say they need to apply to everyone what do you mean?
Do you mean like a hard line? So that if the requirements are not met than it doesn’t go to a vote? So that the ICC can’t use their judgement? It either hits or doesn’t hit requirements?

I do think a properly formatted proposal is more likely to get upvotes than just an idea, but there’s nothing stopping anyone from going straight to a proposal. And if someone doesn’t have an ILV to submit it they can always ask an ICC or community member to submit on their behalf.

elder sluice
# glossy jetty When you say they need to apply to everyone what do you mean? Do you mean like a...

No, I think everything you said is valid. All those things should continue.
Perhaps people get feedback to gauge the interest before putting in the work for an IIP.
Yes a person can get ICC to make one for you.
I'm just wondering why then it applies to ideas and feedback rather than a full proposal?
It's a little confusing.
Is it still the case only those with ILV can talk in the proposal channel?

If so. Then everyone can make comments and opinions on feedback and ideas, yet not on proposals.
So if a proposal goes through without going to ideas and feedback many people could be locked out of contributing?

To me it's one for some and not for others.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it yet it doesn't seem like everyone is on the same playing field.

#

I guess what I'm asking is if an amount of negative votes can stop an IIP created, the. Surely the same ought to apply for IIPs.

glossy jetty
elder sluice
plucky sentinel
# glossy jetty Change the upvote requirement within the ideas section to better reflect communi...

Are you sure that's actually the case?
Afaik ideas/feedback chanel has nothing to do with governance anymore, it's just about gathering sentiment.
(It's also not in governance section)
Basically one want to write a proposal about an idea/change/whatever, and before he does all the work writing it up properly, he can do a rough summary in #1020759212172775464 to see community sentiment
and also might adjust his proposal due to feedback he got.
Then he can writ a proposal (maybe with the help of ICC) and post it in #1126838877429182506 there then stakers+council+team discuss further and everybody can take place in the poll (Thumbs up/down) and then if it reaches a threshhold it has to be discussed on council stage.

#

Can't really remember when it shifted and how, but if i remember right, community got totally cut off the whole governance stuff and is now just a thing for stakers/council/team

glossy jetty
# plucky sentinel Are you sure that's actually the case? Afaik ideas/feedback chanel has nothing t...

To my understanding any idea here that reaches 25 upvotes must be drafted into a proposal and voted on if the original poster wants to proceed with it. Maybe @proven panther can help clarify this, we’ve talked a little about this. I see the governance ideas and feedback ideas channels as one in the same.

The way you explain how it should work I completely agree with, but I’m not sure thats the current process.

plucky sentinel
glossy jetty
# plucky sentinel na, already changed in v2... did some digging. You can read it in the first sent...

It does say 30 upvotes in this screenshot. Which is interesting because it’s seems like 25 has been the target number this past epoch 😅

I’ll have to go through this document again, but it doesn’t seem to specify upvotes from any specific channel. Seems like it would be from feedback ideas, governance ideas, or governance proposals.

Thanks for challenging this tho. I will look deeper to make sure I have the correct information.

plucky sentinel
#

But yea, better inform yourself exactly, cause thats out of v2 because i was looking for when and how it got changed and there for sure were some changes later on to the proposal process.

proven panther
#

Spoon is correct about proposals needing to be in #1126838877429182506 - It was causing problems where feedback items were being treated like proposals in #1020759212172775464 . Someone's personal thoughts on balance or anything else that they want to provide does not need to be met with the same scrutiny a proposal does.

Proposals should very clearly be proposals, and so we made a dedicated place for proposals to exist last epoch. Things from feedback-ideas can become proposals, but for upvote requirements, #1126838877429182506 is where that happens.

proven panther
# glossy jetty To my understanding any idea here that reaches 25 upvotes must be drafted into a...

No, 25 upvotes isn't an automatic "This now gets drafted and must be voted on."

The decision maker is the sponsor of the proposal. A post in #1126838877429182506 reaching 25 upvotes is eligible to be moved to a vote, if the sponsor chooses to do so.

One thing I've always felt extremely strongly about is that the council should never be deciding what they vote on. We already get to make the decision on whether or not to pass a proposal, and ensuring that the sponsor has the final say in what moves to a vote means that the community can always force the council to vote on something they feel strongly about. The council can then vote to approve or reject the proposal.

elder sluice
#

@glossy jetty considering the above, my concern is irrelevant.

untold mesa
proven panther
#

That's not coercion at all, you don't have any agency over a sponsor. You absolutely approach them and ask if they want to move a proposal to a vote after 25 upvotes. Typically, the sponsor of an unpopular proposal or a proposal that has received lots of feedback will want to make revisions or not move a proposal to a vote at all.

glossy jetty
proven panther
#

Sometimes an idea might be great but might need to be more clear and specific to be a proposal to ensure it's actionable.

rigid pasture
#

yes, feedback/ideas is a tool to help the writer to gauge community sentiment. a proposal can go straight to governance ideas if they want to tho

rigid pasture
#

frankly, im hoping the ICC can vote on more than 1 proposals per week lol

#

its pretty hard to clock in 10-15 hours per week with only a few proposals to vet

stone rampart
# rigid pasture frankly, im hoping the ICC can vote on more than 1 proposals per week lol

It would be great to see proposals coming from council and community alike.

At the IMC were looking st epoch priorities while personally I'm looking at the angle of risk management and ease of governance. Unfortunately (or fortunately) a lot of the topics we take on doesn't need proposals and can ve acted on free from the constraints of the process but still has lasting impact to the community Atlas_Love

rigid pasture
#

i personally want it easier for the community to propose ideas, i am not sure if this idea will bring more proposals. i prefer lower requirements, and then it's up to the ICC to vote for or agaisnt it.

elder sluice
#

This is a little off topic for this idea. Yet I would like all members regardless of verification of ILV, holders or stalkers, to have access to chat in the governance section.

It would allow the opportunity for greater representation.
Sure hold the vote, yet there is no good reason to take away the right to speak in governance channels.

elder sluice
rigid pasture
elder sluice
#

I understand all the reasons.
I won't get into here though.
It's something I'm passionate about. Yet it may now be such an issue soon as people start being rewarded in ILV.

#

They still have to verify though.

plucky sentinel
elder sluice
#

Yeah lol.

near drum
#

I actually disagree with the proposals up there... I get that we don't want to waste council's time with a proposal that would have 75 downvotes for 25 upvotes.

But if a proposal ends at 50-50 upvotes downvotes, that just means that there is a discussion within the community and that we need the council to cut on the topic.

Your proposals remove that and it's a shame because it will encourage people to only post no-brainers or stupid stuff nobody really cares about rather than seeking for what's best for the project.

Your proposal also empowers more malicious actors that could be willing to shut down a proposal just for their own personal interest or to play low-level politics trying to discredit other people. Reminder it's easier to get 6 friends to downvote something than 25 to upvote, and our proposals channels aren't as active as we wished they were, all in all it pretty much the same 50 people interacting in this section.

glossy jetty
# near drum I actually disagree with the proposals up there... I get that we don't want to w...

Yeah the idea was to be more future proof when the community grows and becomes more involved.
I agree 50/50 deserves a a conversation and a vote. I suggested more like a 40% upvote.
Getting friends to vote one way or another works both ways. And it can be a problem, but I with such low participation it’s hard to avoid that.

I keep thinking when we get to a point where 200+ people are more active and every proposal has 25+ upvotes. Drafting up and voting on a proposal that clearly isn’t supported by the community and won’t pass the ICC seems like a waste of time to me.

near drum
glossy jetty
near drum
glossy jetty
rigid pasture
near drum
elder sluice
# rigid pasture there is no such thing as wasting council's time. the community took their time ...

I agree with this 100 percent.
Yet also see it being a resource issue in the future.
5 council members reading, acknowledging and responding to feedback and ideas may be too much of a workload.
I actually do see how it can be inefficient to everyones time if resources and communication continue on a topic that will not gain traction.
It doesn't mean the idea/feedback isn't valuable or appreciated.
I'm guessing that was one of the reasons to separate proposals and feedback/ideas.
For now as people have mentioned it is manageable.
Yet if the number reaches a critical mass to capacity, some other systems will likely be needed, so people are not lost in the masses and putting more effort and time into an idea/feedback that will most likely not be utilised at that time.

hot compass
elder sluice
hot compass
#

So number of tokens you own = your voting weight for something going to council. Obviously this would take resources to develop further and shouldn't be a priority currently, but would be a better system.

elder sluice
#

Ahh I see. Personally I don't like the current voting system.
I see where people get the idea that having more tokens means you have more investment and interest in the game doing well, yet I don't think that qualifies a person to know what is going to make the game do well.

People can also use multiple wallets, large holders can sway votes.
It's currently a plutocracy, not a democracy and I'm not sure if that's in the best interests of the DAO or at least, not how it is being advertised.

Personally I like the idea of one human one vote, yet I do feel that people who have been in the project for a long time, have shown their Interest and stake in the game, so could have extra weight to their vote.

I would like to see it discussed again at some point.

hot compass
hot compass
elder sluice
elder sluice
#

Afaik there are safe guards in place to stop potential abuse and even if someone does get their proposal through to the next level, it still has to go through other processes. It is not an automatic yes to vote.

Also just because someone plays the game and earns tokens doesn't mean they are in any way interested in governance.

#

Plus Im not sure earning of tokens is an endless mechanic.

#

Its definitely a worthy discussion yet perhaps for another thread.

proven panther
#

It's not perfect, but nothing will be with a decentralized model. There's always going to be some way people can exploit something. The best we can do is check for those exploits, which is something that happens.

Sentiment upvoting can be gamed, but it doesn't mean a proposal passes, it just moves it to a vote. Our best protected process is elections for council members, who do the voting on proposals.

#

The main risk point introduced by requiring strict upvote > downvote metrics is that there may be unpopular proposals that need to be passed, but the reasons they may need to pass could be undesirable to broadcast publicly.

A lot of effort goes into ensuring the maximum possible amount of communication around proposals, especially when they are related to a subject that we know the community may react poorly to. In general, we've never seen heavily downvoted proposals moved through voting, and in general, we never should.

However, none of us can claim to know the future, and all that we do by making proposal requirements stricter for sentiment voting is introduce additional risk.

elder sluice
#

For the whole message.
❤️

balmy cave
#

Just an idea, it’s possible to do a community type snapshot, where maybe let’s say the Community council can post ideas that want to be pushed for IIP/ICCP, and if your a token holder/staker you get 1 vote. You could go that route and have a threshold on snap shot of 75% approval or something to that sort, to account for downvotes. Not sure if this has been brought up and if it has ignore more I haven’t back read all of this. You could also just do a straight token amount vote or vilv like we already do for elections but I’m sure ppl wouldn’t like that idea. Hence suggesting the 1 vote per any x of tokens… doesn’t stop Sybil attack but hey it’s just to get the idea to an IIP where the community council will see it so if it was Sybild the cc would hopefully recognise this and deny

#

And I’m 90% sure this is all possible through snapshot

elder sluice