Re: bidding -- Rules Committee PRIVATE FORUM

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:56:33 09/13/00 Wed
Author: just threw it
Subject: Re: bidding
In reply to: tracee 's message, "bidding" on 07:04:14 09/13/00 Wed

re: getting bidding system ironed out ... i'm not sure what's wrong with the bidding system other than a lot of people don't like it?? is it doing what it was intended to do in the first place? and how long do you give people to adjust to something new before you just scrap it? change is hard for everyone to accept. what about the people who like the bidding system? what about the people who voted yes for the bidding system? they are the ones who bothered to vote ... so do we use the subcommittee to try to overturn a majority vote from the voting booth?

i don't know that putting it back in the voting booth so quickly is the answer, either. the issues in the voting booth were publicized at the time, if ladder players didn't vote at the time they had the opportunity to vote, i don't see why we should open it for voting again so soon. that's a slap in the face to the people who did vote and just erodes the integrity of our voting system even more.

let's not jump on the rules committee bandwagon and attempt to fix one thing by breaking another. our own credibility is at stake here.

also tracee, i'm confused about what we are supposed to be doing in our subcommittee ... are we supposed to be deciding whether or not the ladder wants a bidding system, or are we supposed to be presenting both the pros and cons of the issue to the committee based on what ladder members have to say? are we supposed to be recommending a course of action to the committee, or are we supposed to be making sure that they consider both sides of an issue when opposing views are being expressed by the players? isn't it the committee's job to debate proposed/existing rules, not ours?

i see our mission on this bidding issue as making sure the committee gets the pros and cons based on what players have said both for and against bidding. it will then be up to the committee to debate the rule and decide whether it stays, goes, or goes back into the voting booth. i thought i was here to give equal representation to each player, whether i agree with them or not.

we are not the legislators, we are the lobbyists. we have to make sure that we lobby for each player and make sure that their voice is heard at the rules committee .. including players that are against bidding and players that are for it. am i wrong about that?

we really need to decide on what format we will use to present agenda items to the committee. i think we should do it like this:

Item 1: Bidding system
Players are against it because: blah blah blah
Players are for it because: blah blah blah
The most vocal players have been: (either) FOR IT (or) AGAINST IT

no recommendation from us about what should be done about it .. i don't think that is our place.

can we get the issue of what we are supposed to be doing/how we are supposed to be doing it resolved asap please?

as an aside, although i don't think it really matters related to the job i'm supposed to be doing here, i hate the bidding system, i voted against it, i refuse to use it, i have been playing with my friends in yahoo instead of open room 1 because otherwise we wouldn't be permitted to play together; i feel a little guilty about that because other players are denied their opportunity to play for rank because the ranked players are playing less games in cases and more games elsewhere; but spades is a game, we play it for fun and relaxation and to be with our friends OR for a really challenging game of spades we know who to play with ... someone ranked 500 can give #2 a run for their money ... because rank doesn't have as much to do with how good you are as it does with how often you play (everyone knows that lol). so i am extremely anti-bidding system personally but i am also extremely against being a bad representative for players who are FOR it.

justy

> i think our first and foremost obligation to the
> people on this ladder is to get the bidding system
> ironed out asap.
> my personal opinion is to get it back in the voting
> booth immediately and let the ladder know that it is
> there.
> at best right now--that has to be our first issue to
> address.i also posted a thread in the general forum
> today--i am feeling like alot of work is needed to
> adjust what people do not like, etc.
> i put a feeler out to see what the idea would be to go
> with scrapping everything..do a rank reset-leaving
> stats intact, and starting over with the ORIGINAL set
> of cases rules and then letting the committees go from
> there.
> i almost think our job would be much easier there than
> having to go back and fix what doesn't work.the
> original rules are good guidelines to start from.
> it would be much easier building than tearing down.
> thats just a thought that i have--lets see what
> response it generates-and maybe a push to get it as
> one of the first items on the agenda for the voting
> booth if it meets with favoritism.
> one attractive thing about this is that we could have
> the ladder community vote on everything on the
> rules-and there should be no concerns as to unfairness.
> i agree with jay in the first meeting, we are going to
> have to make this a very quick process-the committees
> should post a goal as to when we can feasibly get this
> done.
> otherwise, i feel we are going to lose alot of our
> great players-i am sensing dissension.
> by starting over-we would be on the same ground as
> yahoo-no better and no worse.it would be up to us to
> guide this project to make it better.
> what do you all think?
>
> tracee

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

P.S. lol -- just threw it, 08:04:25 09/13/00 Wed
Re: bidding -- tracee, 08:09:49 09/13/00 Wed
- Re: bidding -- just threw it, 08:25:33 09/13/00 Wed