changes? like what? sounds interesting spill the beans
Thank you for your interest, friend!
There are 2 issues on the PR that I want to address in the immediate future.
1. The powers that be.
For this point I want to do 2 things. First, I want to officially make clear who is making the PR decisions. I've noticed that whenever it comes time to update the PR, a panelist may very well not be a panelist as their is no distinction to the thought given to a panelist's list, or a non-panelist's list. At other times, a panelist's list will be law and non-panelists will find there is little wiggle-room in one person's opinion.
As it stands now, a panelist's word
should be law in regards to the making PR decisions. By that I mean that it is what the rules set out, but the rule is not followed. I want to both solidify the panelist's power, and soften the power that they have. We solidify power by making clear what influence(s) a panelist has. And after we set the boundaries, it is followed until we decide to change the balance of powers. We soften their powers by officially giving voting power to the people (non-panelists).
This will help us tremendously in maintaining
consistency in our decisions, leaves nobody out of the decision-making process, distributes power, and makes very clear what each person's contributions are.
2. Punctuality
I want to fix the fact that it takes an undetermined amount of time to update the PR. As it stands currently, when the final tournament is finished (eg. in this case, after the May tournament), and the community decides it's time for an update, nobody knows when it will actually get updated. It usually takes a long time as nobody wants to update it until all the heat is settled. Even then, it's not fully settled. People just give-in and say "ok, whatever" for the sake of an update.
How do we fix these problems?
Simply - introduce a system that addresses these 2 issues firmly.
First we officially distribute power. As it stands, the panelists officially hold 100% of the voting power. We cut this down to something like 70%, and give 30% of the voting power to non-panelists. Yes I believe that panelists should hold that much more influence, at least at the moment. Panelists should have been chosen to properly assess people in relation to other people. Choose your panelists wisely. This also helps to prevent trolling the system. The 30% that's given to the people means that if less people vote, each person has more power. Once the people can demonstrate a mature level of contribution and minimum level of trolling, the balance of power may be changed if warranted.
This both distributes power, and makes a very clear distinction of each person's contributions.
Second, we set a date for when the votes will be counted. Ideally this will be enough days after the final tournament for enough arguments to be had and opinions to be changed. After everybody gets to speak their piece, the votes get counted on the determined date and the list is updated. If you haven't voted by this date then you haven't voted. Panelists are required to vote at the risk of losing their position. Non-panelists may or may not vote at their own discretion. Votes are counted and tallied according to the balance of power.
TL;DR - Distribute power, update on time.
