1
Dominion League / Re: Season 35 - Newsletter: Feedback
« on: July 21, 2019, 11:06:02 pm »
What follows is the agenda for the rules portion of the Season 35 moderators meeting, along with all votes taken during this portion.
- Changes to the rules document itself
- Living document/Google doc
- Make Rules & Regulations change log public
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Make Rules & Regulations change log public
- "Tighten up" and make more precise
- Will handle on a case-by-case basis.
- Amendment process
- Motion to add Amendment section postulating that moderators may change the rules by a majority vote of all League moderators for a given season
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Motion to add a comment to above section that exceptions to the rules can be changed mid-season (by a majority vote) if and only if all directly affected players agree to such a change.
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Motion to add Amendment section postulating that moderators may change the rules by a majority vote of all League moderators for a given season
- Living document/Google doc
- Community relations
- Other ways to collect feedback beyond Returning form
- Agree to allow players to submit feedback that we will look at via newsletter forum post replies
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Agree to allow players to submit feedback that we will look at via newsletter forum post replies
- League Fan role question in Returning form
- Add "Would you like the League Fan role?" to the returning form for non-returners
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Add "Would you like the League Fan role?" to the returning form for non-returners
- Town Hall meetings
- Town Hall meetings as an option for challenges on which we need creativity
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Town Hall meetings as an option for challenges on which we need creativity
- Dedicated feedback Discord channel
- No dedicated feedback channel for now, reassess next season
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- No dedicated feedback channel for now, reassess next season
- Dedicated moderator liaison
- No liaison for now. Revisit if there is substantial disagreement between players and moderators
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- No liaison for now. Revisit if there is substantial disagreement between players and moderators
- Other ways to collect feedback beyond Returning form
- Changes to League structure
- New tiebreakers
- Add the third tiebreaker before the "final tiebreaker"
- Result: NO (4 dissenting)
- "Add the third tiebreaker?" as a question for the returning form?
- Result: YES (2 dissenting)
- What should the final tiebreaker be? (approval votes)
- 2-3 game playoff (9)
- 4-5 game playoff (4)
- 1 game playoff (3)
- Coin flip (2)
- Coin flip, but flip ahead (and announce) (2)
- 6-7 game playoff (0)
- Allow concessions in tiebreaker match
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- If one player is non-responsive within a reasonable time (48 hours in worst case, likely 7 days), give the win to their opponent
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Results of previous two votes go in the FAQ (as opposed to the rules).
- Result: NO (2 dissenting)
- If both players are responsive but mutually unable to schedule, they may mutually agree for a coin flip instead
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- If both players are non-responsive, we flip a coin
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- If both players are responsive, but one is completely unavailable and does not wish to concede (votes)
- Give the win to the available player ( 8 )
- We flip a coin (1)
- Add the above poll to the returning form?
- Result: NO (unanimous)
- If both players are responsive and available at times but not available at the same time, we flip a coin
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Add the third tiebreaker before the "final tiebreaker"
- Expand A (or other divisions)
- Using SamE’s informal discord poll (“Fully-fleshed-out options that have been proposed so far to cover the case of more players returning to a tier than there are spots at that tier and above,” Monday, July 15, 16:13 UTC), moderators voted among themselves between the two most popular options: “1) Expand to however many seven-player divisions are necessary with two demotions. Divisions would stay at 7 until there are fewer returners than leavers,” and “0) Of course, there is also the status quo option of just encouraging these players to return at a lower level.”
- Result: Option 0 (unanimous)
- Add the same poll between options 0 and 1 to the returning form?
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Should we hold a Town Hall on division expansion?
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Using SamE’s informal discord poll (“Fully-fleshed-out options that have been proposed so far to cover the case of more players returning to a tier than there are spots at that tier and above,” Monday, July 15, 16:13 UTC), moderators voted among themselves between the two most popular options: “1) Expand to however many seven-player divisions are necessary with two demotions. Divisions would stay at 7 until there are fewer returners than leavers,” and “0) Of course, there is also the status quo option of just encouraging these players to return at a lower level.”
- Way for 2nd place to promote
- Need to see a complete proposal to assess properly.
- Seeding
- Proposal: Ask in the returning form about what aspects of the general philosophy of seeding people find relevant
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Poll longer season breaks in the returning form?
- Result: NO (1 dissenting)
- Proposal: Ask in the returning form about what aspects of the general philosophy of seeding people find relevant
- Longer/shorter break between seasons
- Infeasible on the moderator end to shorten it. Will discuss lengths of breaks at a future Town Hall.
- New tiebreakers
- Changes to matches and games
- Scheduling issues
- Encourage people to friend their League opponents on the client in Discord Post 2
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Encourage people to friend their League opponents on the client in Discord Post 2
- Ban list
- When the banlist feature comes out, respect banned cards in League matches by default
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Banlist default on the returning form
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Default for current season is to have only Possession banned, but of course players can mutually agree to respect ban lists.
- Result: YES (1 dissenting)
- Banlists are not allowed to be changed within a match (except by mutual agreement)
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Once the banlist feature is live, have a Town Hall about it.
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- When the banlist feature comes out, respect banned cards in League matches by default
- Undo rules
- Undo rule details should be in the official document
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Keep content of our undo policy
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Reword undo policy to emphasize the default and pre-match discussions
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Undo rule details should be in the official document
- Scheduling issues
- Changes to moderator technologies
- Week 2 stats and spreadsheets meeting
- Will try it out this season.
- Bots know about scheduled matches (for internal tracking)
- Will see how difficult this is to implement.
- Week 7 daily bot messages
- No change to messaging pattern. All late match communication handled directly by the moderator, not the bot.
- Week 2 stats and spreadsheets meeting
- Changes to moderator responsibilities
- Increase transparency
- Several plans already in the works, see later votes.
- Separation of duties
- Unclear, will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
- Conflicts of interest
- Already minimized. Unclear how they could be further reduced.
- Selection of new moderators
- Add a line to the Moderation section that new moderators are chosen by a vote of the previous season's moderator team
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Add a line to the Moderation section that new moderators are chosen by a vote of the previous season's moderator team
- Selection of new administrative moderator
- Future arrangements might be different from the current one given moderator availability/skills.
- Increase transparency
- Retention
- Will discuss at a future Town Hall.
- Miscellaneous
- Make #announcements read- and react-only for non-moderators
- Result: NO (1 dissenting)
- Include the championship match in the rules
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Post list of moderators and their divisions somewhere - #announcements proposed
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Should there be a rules committee?
- Result: NO (unanimous)
- Adding the agenda + votes of the moderator meeting to the end of the newsletter (as a reply)
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Require the agenda and votes to be recorded in every season going forward (put this in the rules)
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Don't post anything additional about player who were dropped outside their division channel
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Table discussion of "spreading out" new players to next season
- Result: YES (unanimous)
- Make #announcements read- and react-only for non-moderators