Conquer Club

NOTE : This topic does not intend to discuss the removing of the trench limitation for the CCX. This is not about the trench limitation.

TOPIC : Should the CD respect the result of the poll ?

9 months ago, the CDs decided to make a poll.
Here is the poll ==> Poll

The poll was held for a month in February.
Topic of the poll was to vote on trench limitations for the clans Conquer Cup.
16 clans responded with a result of 9 in favor of going no limit on number of trench games, and 7 in favor of keeping a limit at 50%.
Despite the polls having more options no other options were selected.

CD are mainly claiming they can disregard the poll result because not enough clans responded.
Currently there are 24 actives clans, one of them was created after the poll was finished.
The CC9 had 18 participants.
Number of clans voting was 16.

Recently rules of the CCX were posted which state that trench should be limited to 60%.

9 clans voted for no limit ( i.e 100% alllowed).
7 clans voted for 50% limit.
New rule is 60%.


My question to the clan world is the following :
Do you think the CD should have respected the result of the poll ?

In my opinion this create a dangerous precedent of the CDs completely disregarding what Clan Reps are voting for.
Whether you are against or for no limit in trench shouldn't matter here. Do you think the CD should listen to us, the clans, the clan reps ?
I personally think CD should listen to us, especially when they organize a poll themselves to ask our opinions.

Agreed ! They should must hear and respect the opinion of the majority !

it was 9-7, not hardly a landslide poll.

I can see it if it was 14-3

xroads wrote:it was 9-7, not hardly a landslide poll.

I can see it if it was 14-3

So in case of a 9-7, according to you, they should go with what the 7 wants ? because that is what they did.

I have a serious hard time to understand that logic.

I would suggest the following.

Advisory Polls:

If the CD's run a poll just to gauge the feelings of the community, then please clearly state this and that the result may not be acted upon, in the opening post.

Polls for changing rules:

If a poll is held to decide / change a new rule in a new competition then I would say a straight majority should be enough to decide the result.

If a poll is held to change an existing rule in an established competition. Then a change should only be made if 2/3rd's of the voting clans vote for it.


*** I will add that it's totally pointless for this post to have a poll. There's no control over 1 clan = 1 vote.

I am asking clans players opinions. Not clans.

Please develop your 2/3 rule ? Did we vote and establish the existing rules using a 2/3rd majority ? I dont think so, therefore why a 2/3rd majority should be necessary to change anything. I am honestly puzzled.
By nature men are opposed to change. Asking a 2/3rd majority is basically making sure nothing ever changed.
( another way of making sure nothing ever change is to require more than 80% participation to a vote)

Because it gets rid of situations where changes are made by very low % majorities. Leaving a significant number of clans pissed off by the change. To change an existing rule of an established competition, it should require a clear and significant majority.

Keefie wrote:Because it gets rid of situations where changes are made by very low % majorities. Leaving a significant number of clans pissed off by the change. To change an existing rule of an established competition, it should require a clear and significant majority.

Let's make a totally hypothetical example. 9 clans vote for a change, 7 vote against, the 2-3 other concerned clans don't care.
You don't change the rule, and you get 9 clans pissed off to keep 7 happy. Because 7 is a significant number of a clans possibly pissed off by the change.
That's right ?

Somehow your hypothesis is that the existing rule is a good one that makes people happy because it's an existing rule ?

Still not getting the logic.

I think you answered your own question

It is a poll to ask opinions, not a vote on a change.

xroads wrote:it was 9-7, not hardly a landslide poll.

I can see it if it was 14-3

This.

It looks to me as if they DID respect the poll result. Opinion was clearly divided, so it makes sense to consider both sides and find a compromise.

Winner-takes-all-and-screw-the-loser is a bad idea that has led to bad results in the politics of many nations. No need for it here.

A compromise solution is the reasonable way to go. Kudos to the CDs.

A compromise between 50% and 100% is 75%.

Dukasaur wrote:It looks to me as if they DID respect the poll result. Opinion was clearly divided, so it makes sense to consider both sides and find a compromise.

Winner-takes-all-and-screw-the-loser is a bad idea that has led to bad results in the politics of many nations. No need for it here.

A compromise solution is the reasonable way to go. Kudos to the CDs.

I agree 100% and FOED is one who voted to lift the limitation on trench games and I personally think there should be no limit. Don, I get what you're saying, I do, but CC is NOT a democracy and that poll was not some officially sanctioned thing where winner gets all and loser gets screwed. If the poll results were heavily leaning to one side over another, it'd be a different story. Choosing to increase the limit by 20% was a beautiful compromise I think. The CDs are VOLUNTEERS here and should be commended for what they do, even if it doesn't always go by "popular" opinion. It can be a thankless and at times demanding job.

And please remember that 60% is still NEGOTIABLE and most clans are fine with not having a limit.

Donelladan wrote:A compromise between 50% and 100% is 75%.

+1

Out of curiosity, if someone were to suggest lowering the amount of trench and it came to a vote, with the 9 in favor, would you be happy with 25% or 0% trench allowed?

By the logic used, it would be 40% trench instead of 0% in this hypothetical situation which means you would not lose everything.

I like Keefie's suggestion for future polls. In this case - since the CDs were generally so blatantly against fully allowing trench anyway - it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever. Unfortunately, the way some of the CDs conduct themselves clearly shows how much they like being in control so they probably didn't even think about this. Ultimately, over the years, certain CDs have shown very little regard for what clans and their leaders think, and they continue to make it worse. I expect pretty much nothing that aligns with the views of the majority.

cpusurfer wrote:Out of curiosity, if someone were to suggest lowering the amount of trench and it came to a vote, with the 9 in favor, would you be happy with 25% or 0% trench allowed?

By the logic used, it would be 40% trench instead of 0% in this hypothetical situation which means you would not lose everything.

Honestly I wouldn't be "happy" but I wouldn't be complaining about it.

iAmCaffeine wrote:it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever.

Anyone in CAT could have done that.
Sounds like a thing that should of either been done by the ones trying to get the rule changed themselves or at least have made the suggestion for CD's to do such polls back in FEB 2019 when the original poll happened.

Donelladan wrote:A compromise between 50% and 100% is 75%.

Yes, 75% would be considered in the set of compromises between 50% and 100%.
But that set is not a singleton set.
There are many possible choices that would be considered a compromise.

JPlo64 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever.

Anyone in CAT could have done that.
Sounds like a thing that should of either been done by the ones trying to get the rule changed themselves or at least have made the suggestion for CD's to do such polls back in FEB 2019 when the original poll happened.

We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

If you guys knew that was not happening back in February you should have said something. This CD team is becoming known as very very bad communicators. You guys might want to try to fix that.

Caymanmew wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever.

Anyone in CAT could have done that.
Sounds like a thing that should of either been done by the ones trying to get the rule changed themselves or at least have made the suggestion for CD's to do such polls back in FEB 2019 when the original poll happened.

We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

If you guys knew that was not happening back in February you should have said something. This CD team is becoming known as very very bad communicators. You guys might want to try to fix that.

The poll didn't mean mean "nothing" at all.
It was taken into consideration and it had an effect on the subsequent rule change.
An opinion was immediately given that the result did not seem convincing enough to make the rule change.

Lindax on Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:42 am wrote:

Donelladan wrote:One month over. Trench wins.

Yeah, 9-7 is the result of the poll.

With only 16 out of 27 clans voting that seems hardly enough of a victory to change an existing rule. However, we will take this into consideration moving forward.

Thanks to the clans that took the time to vote.

Lx

JPlo64 wrote:

Caymanmew wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever.

Anyone in CAT could have done that.
Sounds like a thing that should of either been done by the ones trying to get the rule changed themselves or at least have made the suggestion for CD's to do such polls back in FEB 2019 when the original poll happened.

We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

If you guys knew that was not happening back in February you should have said something. This CD team is becoming known as very very bad communicators. You guys might want to try to fix that.

The poll didn't mean mean "nothing" at all.
It was taken into consideration and it had an effect on the subsequent rule change.
An opinion was immediately given that the result did not seem convincing enough to make the rule change.

Lindax on Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:42 am wrote:

Donelladan wrote:One month over. Trench wins.

Yeah, 9-7 is the result of the poll.

With only 16 out of 27 clans voting that seems hardly enough of a victory to change an existing rule. However, we will take this into consideration moving forward.

Thanks to the clans that took the time to vote.

Lx

That says nothing about 60%. Again we(at least me) had no idea that you'd pick 60%. I figured you guys will think it over and go with the majority. Instead, you made your decision and kept it to yourselves. Had you guys said you were planning 60% or picking a number between 50%-100% clan leaders could have come together and voiced their opinions. Of course, it is safe to assume the CD's would view that as a negative.

Caymanmew wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

Caymanmew wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever.

Anyone in CAT could have done that.
Sounds like a thing that should of either been done by the ones trying to get the rule changed themselves or at least have made the suggestion for CD's to do such polls back in FEB 2019 when the original poll happened.

We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

If you guys knew that was not happening back in February you should have said something. This CD team is becoming known as very very bad communicators. You guys might want to try to fix that.

The poll didn't mean mean "nothing" at all.
It was taken into consideration and it had an effect on the subsequent rule change.
An opinion was immediately given that the result did not seem convincing enough to make the rule change.

Lindax on Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:42 am wrote:

Donelladan wrote:One month over. Trench wins.

Yeah, 9-7 is the result of the poll.

With only 16 out of 27 clans voting that seems hardly enough of a victory to change an existing rule. However, we will take this into consideration moving forward.

Thanks to the clans that took the time to vote.

Lx

That says nothing about 60%. Again we(at least me) had no idea that you'd pick 60%. I figured you guys will think it over and go with the majority. Instead, you made your decision and kept it to yourselves. Had you guys said you were planning 60% or picking a number between 50%-100% clan leaders could have come together and voiced their opinions. Of course, it is safe to assume the CD's would view that as a negative.

I was responding to

Caymanmew wrote:We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

The quote previously posted obviously suggested the contrary to what you claim you thought would happen.

Caymanmew wrote: I figured you guys will think it over and go with the majority.

That is not consistent with the opinion that was given by the CD Team.
What was communicated by the CD Team, was consistent with the final result.

Caymanmew wrote:Instead, you made your decision and kept it to yourselves.

On the contrary, the decision was made public rather quickly after it was made.

JPlo64 wrote:

Caymanmew wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

Caymanmew wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:it would've been a good idea to create a follow up poll, asking for votes on trench allowance with options like 60%, 75%, 100% or increments of 10%, or whatever.

Anyone in CAT could have done that.
Sounds like a thing that should of either been done by the ones trying to get the rule changed themselves or at least have made the suggestion for CD's to do such polls back in FEB 2019 when the original poll happened.

We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

If you guys knew that was not happening back in February you should have said something. This CD team is becoming known as very very bad communicators. You guys might want to try to fix that.

The poll didn't mean mean "nothing" at all.
It was taken into consideration and it had an effect on the subsequent rule change.
An opinion was immediately given that the result did not seem convincing enough to make the rule change.

Lindax on Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:42 am wrote:

Donelladan wrote:One month over. Trench wins.

Yeah, 9-7 is the result of the poll.

With only 16 out of 27 clans voting that seems hardly enough of a victory to change an existing rule. However, we will take this into consideration moving forward.

Thanks to the clans that took the time to vote.

Lx

That says nothing about 60%. Again we(at least me) had no idea that you'd pick 60%. I figured you guys will think it over and go with the majority. Instead, you made your decision and kept it to yourselves. Had you guys said you were planning 60% or picking a number between 50%-100% clan leaders could have come together and voiced their opinions. Of course, it is safe to assume the CD's would view that as a negative.

I was responding to

Caymanmew wrote:We didn't know that the poll meant nothing until you guys posted the rules. I think many of us thought that the trench rule would be removed, I know I did.

The quote previously posted obviously suggested the contrary to what you claim you thought would happen.

Caymanmew wrote: I figured you guys will think it over and go with the majority.

That is not consistent with the opinion that was given by the CD Team.
What was communicated by the CD Team, was consistent with the final result.

Caymanmew wrote:Instead, you made your decision and kept it to yourselves.

On the contrary, the decision was made public rather quickly after it was made.

The CD team's "opinion" was "However, we will take this into consideration moving forward". No final decision was made public until you posted the signups.

So, once again you guys need to improve your communication. I fully believe you guys intentionally kept the final decision private and did not ask the CAT reps for further thought as you guys simply hate discussion and involvement from the community.

Caymanmew wrote:The CD team's "opinion" was "However, we will take this into consideration moving forward". No final decision was made public until you posted the signups.

I correct your interpretation, the opinion was that "...seems hardly enough of a victory to change an existing rule."
"However, we will take this into consideration moving forward" Is a statement that turned out to be truthful.

Caymanmew wrote:I fully believe you guys intentionally kept the final decision private and did not ask the CAT reps for further thought as you guys simply hate discussion and involvement from the community.

That must be why we are the CD's that decided to make CAT(formally CDF) discussions publicly viewable by all as opposed to behind closed doors, as it always was before.

Just a broad thought without criticizing anything that's happened in the past. More transparency, even if it means more debate, usually leads to greater buy-in. JPlo's suggestion that a CAT rep should have posted a second poll comparing various percentages is a good one, but so is Cayman's that no one knew what was being considered and thought the issue was decided (and may not have been as clever as Caff or JPlo to come up with the idea if they had known it wasn't). I know from experience that sometimes the decisions are made when they have to be made and not before, but if there's a way to float what's being considered and why early and allow for people to be heard (whether it be on trench rules, CWC versus CC/CL, or any major decisions that significantly affect clan life), I think there'd be more buy-in when the decision is made, with the clans feeling like their ideas had been considered in reaching the decision.

TLDR: Transparency and debate are good, and even if throwing out an idea for debate may feel like target practice for the CDs, the discussion ultimately will make the decisions more popular and palatable.

mdhill
(Speaking for myself)