I made this topic in the old forum but I think a lot of people missed it and I still think it is an idea we should try out.
Up until now the community has been left to the mercy of the mapmakers, the tournament arranger, or the forumadmins, to settle disagreements, which have lead to a cut-throat enviorment with lies, manipulations and various alliances just for the purpose to have collateral towards whoever is in charge. It have strongly damaged the chances of civilized discussion, and often friendship have been privilaged before good arguments. It have also been tough for the mapmakers/tournament arrangers/forumadmins who have been put to hard decisions, and I suspect that the alternative to not do anything have often been more tempting than making a decision in questions of vast disagreements.
Therefore I suggest the introduction of a democractic method to settle disagreements. Now I suspect many of you laugh and doubt this is even possible, and you are right by doing so. But when you really think about it, I dont think it actually would be this hard.
My suggestion is similar to many countries, but obviously a lot more simple. What I suggest is a council made out of different "parties".
A party consist of a party-leader, council-candidates and ideas of how to develop for instance the map.
What I suggest is that people who feel they have strong ideas about how the map should be developed form a party, present the direction they want the map to go in, maybe if you have some especially strong questions thats important for you for instance the stackfarm or removing invis and then who the leader is and who the council candidates are.
Between 2 specific dates we then have the voting, this is the hard process and Ill get back to that later, when the votingprocess is over all parties over a certain limit, lets say hypotheticly 5 % get a part in the council. The council consists of the partyleaders and additional councilmembers for the bigger parties after a certain pattern. For instance this can be that you get one candidate for each additional 5 % you have. Now, the function of the council is mainly to discuss and debate sheep tag questions.
The actual decisions are then made by the parties through a voting where each party represent its voters. You represent your percentage share of the total votes the councilparties got in the election.
Obviously we will also have reelections at recurring times which prevent parties from doing something else than what they promised.
The complicated part is, as I mentioned above, the actual votingproces. But I dont think its imposible to settle.
Some of you might wonder why not just have direct votings?
Well first of the problem is a votingprocess is very complicated. We cannot have direct voting at every suggestion, whereas a democratic council can easily pass through basicly any amount of suggested mapchanges per week without any problems. Its also a lot easier to repair misstakes with a democratic council, lets say you have a major voting, you vote yes to introduce something but quickly realize it was a misstake. Will we have a democratic voting direcly again then?
Home 