Rule change idea: options for neutral participation

[Astros GM (Adam)]

Possible area for improvement:

Adding a “neutral” option to rule change polls.


Why this could be considered an area for improvement:

Some GMs are more passionate than others when considering proposed rule changes. What may be a major upgrade in one person’s view could be an irrelevant detail in the mind of another. In recognition of that fact, a “neutral” voting option could allow a GM to yield his vote and still participate.


Possible solution:

Add a “neutral” option to rule change polls whenever possible. The “neutrals” could be added to whichever side wins the majority for the sake of reaching the necessary threshold for adoption.


Pros of the solution:

- Greater enjoyment of the game for a larger number of people. (If position eligibilities are of no great significance to me, yet I see others consider it an important issue, why should my vote prevent progress? Should my 51% preference be of equal value to someone else’s 99% preference?)

- Potential for higher participation rates.

- As an option on the polling page, it’s not somrting that anyone should be persuaded to use, but it has the potential to give a more accurate representation of the league’s views.

- An easier path to rule change adoption.


Cons of the solution:

- It’s less democratic.

- It has the potential to give a less accurate view of league preferences. (See also “pros”.)

- I don’t expect anyone here would do this, but lobbying others to use the “neutral” option would be an undesirable behavior.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the post.

If I am interpreting this correctly, I think your suggestion would only impact 'rule change proposals' as these require a heavier level of support than a simple 'league decision', and within rule change proposals only the two-thirds majority part would perhaps be affected by a possible 'neutral' vote rather than an absent vote.

How would you suggest that neutral votes be accounted for within the first half of the following statement from rule 1.5?

Any "rule change proposal" receiving a two-thirds majority of the vote when a minimum of 10 votes are received, or receiving 16 or more votes in favour of the change will be written into the rulebook at the agreed time.

Thanks,
Stephen

[Astros GM (Adam)]

It’s quite possible that this isn’t well thought out. But just one idea would be that the “neutrals” could be added to whichever side wins the majority for the sake of reaching the necessary threshold for adoption.

A few examples:
- If the outcome of a vote is 15 for, 14 against, 1 neutral, then the neutral gets added to the “for” column. This motion would be adopted because it met the requirements
- If the outcome of a vote is 6 for, 4 against, 2 neutral, then the neutral gets added to the “for” column. This motion would be adopted because it met the requirements.
- If the outcome of a vote is 7 for, 8 against, 15 neutral, then the neutras get added to the “against” column. The motion doesn’t pass.
- If the outcome is 5 for, 5 against, 5 neutrals, the neutrals aren’t added to either side.

My reason for bringing this up is that there are a few rule change ideas that have been presented recently about which my greatest sentiment is indifference. Most recently in regards to position eligibilities, I like the Fantrax defaults, but don’t really care if they go away. Others have a more passionate stance. I’m not going to be an absent vote, so this is just a possible way of participating while also allowing those who care more to have their voice amplified a little.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the additional detail.

I have also had similar thoughts in the past about the impact of 'neutrals' during rule voting, and whether there could be another way of accounting for them in the rule vote process.


On the other hand, I wonder whether the question a rule vote poses could be phrased differently to help a neutral know where to direct their vote.
Our constitution already sets a high standard for changing an existing rule, with a lesser standard required for a 'decision' (traditionally, this has been a scenario that the original rule book failed to account for so there was no existing rule to question or challenge). As this league is now well established - and I hope it can be fairly described as successful given the stability, community and average length of ownership - it seems right to me that there is a high standard required to change what is fundamentally 'working'.

Even for the one or two proposals this offseason that I truly believe would improve the league if voted in (I'm looking at you, RP arb salaries), I would still want to see a strong majority of the league support them for the rulebook to be changed.
Without overwhelming and explicit support for a rule change, I think the longevity and success of the league over the past few years would suggest that in the case of any doubt things should be left as they are. If a neutral can't be persuaded that the change is in the best interest of the league, I am not sure of the merit of automatically adding their indifference to the 'change' pile just because a couple more people favoured change than didn't.

To that end, I think it could be argued that a neutral could be directed to vote against any changes, on the basis that changes should only be made if there is strong and explicit support for it. Neutrality is neither strong nor explicit support for a change, so why should their votes ever be put towards supporting a change?
Given the level of maturity in our league, I believe it should be difficult for rules to be changed - and that overwhelming support for a change needs to be proved for it to be delivered.


I'm not sure if I've explained myself as clearly as I could there.
What would you think if rule votes gave guidance to neutrals to vote for 'no change' if they had no strong opinion either way, thereby ensuring that any changes that did meet the majority threshold truly were the wishes of the electorate (and the fallback being that we remain with rules that fundamentally have been working over the past x years)?

Thanks,
Stephen

[Astros GM (Adam)]

Thanks also for the effort you’ve put in to replying to this topic as well. Frankly, this idea isn’t something I’m passionate about either. 🙂 I might be a neutral vote regarding neutral votes.

Yes, the explanation makes perfect sense. I wouldn’t think any further guidance is needed. Someone who is indifferent to a proposal can vote to keep the status quo. It’s probably best not to water down the thresholds for rule changes. I agree with the assessment that the league is stable and fun as it currently is.

I’ll be as happy as can be whether we add a neutral option or not. I just feel a little bit guilty knowing that some outcomes could be altered for the sake of participation.

We can put this idea back on the shelf. Thanks for the consideration and thoughtful explanation.