While I think it is a good idea to give more opportunities for proposals to be voted by everyone, I still see some problems:
First, the people voting in pre-proposals are the ones really interested in governance. I know a number of players that just cast their votes to get rid of the notification window, without giving a serious thinking about the proposal itself.
Also, more votes will mean more complaints about "endless voting notifications" from players who are not interested in governance.
Finally, since there is no way to show one's opposition to a pre-proposal, it will probably reduce the discussion. People will know it will be sent to official vote anyways (5% is not so high) and they can just skip the pre-proposal and directly vote during the official proposal period. It may have a serious impact as people will have to make a choice with less quality feedback (for or against).
Hopefully this could be fixed. i.e a vote for For/Against and Pass?
Notification pop up has annoyed the fk out of me before. Think i voted no just to shut it up! 🤣
Edit: Another thing that may be of use, is if not voting For/Against you have to pick an option from a list of why not. ie 1) don't understand it. 2) not interested 3) above my pay grade etc
I think having a "comment" field could provide useful info for any vote: whether yes, no, or pass. That way of something fails, the proposer could see the reasons people voted against
Second this but the comment section should be and cannot be viewed by other people other than the Splinterlands devs and the main proposer.
The reason for this is to avoid harassment and influencing other people's votes. There is a link to the main proposer's hive post and people can voice out their opinions there. The comment section for the votes is more like anonymous.
I apologize if I cannot express myself properly. It is 1:40am now.
TLDR, I don't want the possible comment section to be another reddit/twitter/youtube comment section. I don't think influencing other people's opinion is good right before they vote.
I think it should be on the blockchain, stored with the Vote itself. However, it doesn't necessarily need to be prominent or focused, and keeping a short length would make sense too. Most people would probably let their vote stand for itself without spending too much time to comment.
However, for me, if I saw a large SPS holder was voting against, I think it is in the public interest to be able to see why?
Yes, that could be a good idea to introduce a "pass" choice for proposals!
It opens a big debate about how to account for these "pass" votes though 😅 Should we consider that they are fine with either outcome and do not count their voice to approve or reject a proposal, or should we count them in ?
In the first case, the Pass vote will simply become a "do not remind me" button, and in the second it will become basically a 2nd "No" button.
Not an easy thing to do in the end, but it could more accurately represents the opinion of the whole community toward a given proposal.
The idea of the questionnaire is nice as well, but I think the idea of pre-proposals serve the same purpose, it gives time for people to say if they are interested or not. Except that we never thought about asking who did not care 😆
Based on your argument, I think the pass button should only be a do not remind me thing and should not count vote towards anywhere.
I mean, if you disagree, then vote for no. You don't need to vote for pass.
Well, the answer might not be as easy as it seems.
Indeed, making the button as a "don't remind me" option is the right solution if we consider that people can only be 100% for or 100% against the proposal.
In this case, clicking pass means "I don't care" and we can consider that this person will be fine with either outcome.
However, that becomes more complex if we want the governance system to take in account other answers that 100% yes or no. It makes sense because proposals can be long, complex and involve multiple components. Therefore, someone can have mixed feelings about the proposal and not wanting it to pass entirely while at the same time not wanting that all ideas in it become forever classified as "rejected by the community". In this case, allowing a "Pass" option and taking it in account can lead to a follow up vote.
For example, above a certain percentage of "Pass" vote, we can decide to launch a discussion thread and then rewrite one or multiple proposals that can be variations of the original proposal, or a simplification.
While it is possible at now to rewrite a different proposal right after one has been rejected, people might vote no by default arguing that this has already been rejected. Using a Pass option makes it clear that a 2nd version of the proposal is required.
Overall, it makes things slower but more accurate. But this is only needed if we think the governance system should allow more answers that simply yes and no. This is really a choice about what kind of governance philosophy we want ^^
I understand your point. However, I think making the pass button as "remind me later" button can be more confusing. I mean, if you wanted to be reminded later, just close the notification.
Also, I am thinking of this in a government election standpoint. You can choose a candidate that you want (meaning you vote a yes for them and no for others) or just don't vote at all.
So, in this proposal, You actually have 4 choices: Agree, disagree, pass (I don't care. Don't remind me for this one) and ignore (not a button. Just literally close or ignore the notification so you will be reminded of it again on your next login)
The pass button is just that. It's a pass for this proposal. Like you said, either the voter don't care and/or fine either way.
I do agree on making this more accurate so I think a comment section would be good on all agree, disagree and pass votes. So, even if you pass, you have the option of expressing why you are okay either eay or don't care or if you have suggestion. Of course, comments will be optional.
I think rather than making this complicated for the sake of accuracy is bad because it would be confusing for most. So, it would be better if everything is literally what it's meaning. "I click on the pass button because I want to pass. No hidden meaning behind it."
I might be wrong but I believe making this simple is better overall.
That above my paygrade had me.. 🤣.
I for one were kinda annoyed in the pop up notif regarding the proposal, I think its better that the option regarding the notif is that the excerpts or at least the title of the proposal is shown so that players can at least have some knowledge regarding the proposal up for vote, and there should be a choice outright to decline or at least put the notification to end like (dont remind for today). That way, those who are against (depending on an obvious title) will be able to vote against outright, and for those who are curious what the proposal is about can check based also on the excerpts or title of the proposal, or at least put a set of time CD for the notification to pop up again. :D
just my small cents though..