Flawed voting system brings p2p ?

I'm not totally serious on p2p. I can see that, at least here in forum, there is a clear majority in favor of p2p teleporting and retiring of telehubs.

But I am very concerned on a general point. We have been clearly told that the reason for this change is the vote in its favor.
Are we happy with this ? Is the voting system fit to have brought about this decision ?

I think not.

A mere 370 people chose to place votes in favor on this proposition. Out of 80,000 residents, maybe 10,000 active participants.

So how many were against p2p ? We don't know. No-one counted.

I was against, but I therefore had no vote. How many others ?
This is truly ludicrous, and absolutely indefensible.

I propose that no decision on SL feature changes should take voting numbers into account until this gaping defect is rectified. It's hardly difficult to do, and we've been waiting many months.
This voting system is nonsense. It should influence NO decision until it is rectified.

In this case, my guess is that a fair vote woulkd probably have given the same decision. But next time that may be far from the case.
A voting system as flawed as this is worse than none at all. To hear LL saying that they did this in response to our vote is truly ridiculous.

A proper vote, incorporating both sides, or none. If for some ridiculous reason it cannot be fixed, then abolish it entirely. It is so discredited by this omission that we don't bother voting any more. A sort of feedback that pushes it still further into irrelevancy.

Fix it, or kill it. Till then don't obey it or even quote it. Am I wrong ?

Breaking the rules is always wrong.

The Vote was fair

The Proposal passed

The Lindens are developing it

Case closed.

hahahaha, you can't be serious about that? Can you? How can you say that this vote is any fairer than your own little crusade against a poll on this forum over rolling back to 1.6 recently? Even that one had a negative option, as I remember, which the voting tool does not.

You're one of the most confusing people I think I've come across here. If it suits your agenda, the rose-coloured glasses come out, if it doesn't then you'll make do with the knives. All people push their own agendas to a certain extent, but you're just go goddam black and white about it all the time! Even to the point of presenting contradictory statements, like you have here.

PS. I'm happy p2p is coming, but I have to agree with Ellie on the underlying brokenness of a voting system that only counts one side.

Did you not notice "But I am very concerned on a general point.", Magnum ? Springing to the defence of your own feature voting proposal, you may not have noticed I was not actually attacking it.

On the general point, what do people think ? A vote in which one side of the argument is not even counted - is that a valid voting procedure you wish to see continued ? Does it accurately report the opinion of the electorate ?

Perhaps I should add, to avoid confusion, that the question I appear to be asking is the question I am asking. And that I am asking it because I am puzzled, and interested to see what your answers will be. No irony. No sarcasm. No hidden agenda. Flaw in voting system comes to my attention via 2p2. Want to discuss flaw. p2p perfectly well discussed elsewhere.

Sheeesh.......what a posting environment that one needs to say that........

Ellie the title of this thread gives the clear impression that you're against P2P.

You'd have been better served with a thread title that was specific to the voting system (and didn't include p2p).

SO start a proposal in the voting system that's designed to "save the current TH system"?

See how many votes it gets.

LF

This thought crossed my mind too. (Lack of negative votes).

Most frustrating.

On the flip side, I see over 1000 votes have now been opened up for new things.

Those of you that want better land-parcel controls? Vote for Prop 244! (pretty please)

The voting system is a farce.
P2P teleports used to exist, they still exist for Lindens and they continue to exist as as a halfway P2P "offer teleport".
Telehubs failed to create the "centers of association" they were intended to produce.
Telehubs did create huge hits on the asset server as people trying to get somewhere had to load the whole hub-lag-mall thing which usually got to their client after they had already flown away.
In a time when LL is looking to keep the asset server from coughing up blood from overuse using tricks like dropping hover-tips, unwanted telehub rezzing has got to help reduce load on the asset system.
If P2P teleporting is reinstated as it was before it was removed, there will be a small L$ charge for teleporting; in a time when LL is looking for more L$ sinks in the economy, this must look really attractive.

In short, LL is doing this because it suits their purposes. They'd have likely done it before but for the anguished cried of people who bought telehub land in expectation of future returns.

Good grief, LF. Did you really misunderstand what I was trying to say here this totally ?

I'm trying to discuss the nature of the voting system. A general question.
The "p2p" in the title is a bit naughty, yes, but read the first line.

It was looking at the p2p vote, because LL had quoted it as responsible for their decision. Looking at it reminded me how flawed this voting system is. Is this rocket science ?

Will no more than one of you actually say what you think about such a voting system, counting only one side of the votes? Don't you HAVE a view on this, guys ? Forget p2p. There are numerous other threads for that. p2p pointed the voting problem out because LL said they did it because of the vote. I looked at the vote and found it flawed.

Can we please discuss the "flawed". I really think this needs fixing, fast, and I wanna be sure there's nothing I'm missing, by checking your opinions. Before I start another Ellie crusade.

This is like running in treacle................

Interesting, Malachi. Not only do you agree that the voting system a farce. You go further - you think that LL's quoting of it as the main cause of this p2p decision is also a farce. An excuse to justify something they wanted to do anyway, but needed to control the reaction. What better than the defense "but we are only obeying the popular vote".

I have to agree it's a possibility, M. Though as to how likely, I am at a loss to judge. Perhaps others have opinions ?

There are a number of voting systems, many (most?) of which do not involve "voting against".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Of particular interest is the idea that several beneficial characteristics of voting systems are mutually exclusive (Arrow's impossibility theorem). Generally speaking, Arrow's Theorem applies only when there are three or more candidates, but characterizing a situation as complex as this in simple binary (for/against) terms has its own problems.

The basic idea of the theorem is as follows:

Say that the SL userbase is divided into three groups: A - Those in favor of unrestricted P2P, B - those in favor of Telehubs (current system), and C - those in favor of a third variant (hotspots, perhaps).

Arrow's Theorem states that there is NO voting method that satisfies ALL of the following characteristics:

* unrestricted domain: "the vote must have a result that ranks all possible choices relative to one another (i.e., the voting results can't omit A, B, or C), the voting mechanism must be able to process all possible sets of voter preferences (the system can't break if somebody ranks C first, for example), and it should consistently give the same result for the same profile of votes (the system can contain no randomness)"

* non-imposition: Given our options, A, B, and C, all of the possible preference orders (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, etc.) should be possible by some combination of votes.

* non-dictatorship: If the system satisfies this criterion, it means that the result of the vote is, in fact, determined by the voters, not solely by (say) Anshe or Phillip or the FIC, or the Land Barons, or whatever other conspiracy you want to invent.

* positive association of social and individual values: if I decide that I want to vote A, C, B, and then I change my mind for some reason and vote A, B, C, that change should not make B less likely to win than my original vote would have.

* independence of irrelevant alternatives - If the result of the vote is C, B, A, then ignoring one of them (perhaps C is impossible to implement) should not change the order of the other two. That is, after discounting C, the results should remain B, then A.

See also http://students.cs.byu.edu/~cs670ta/Arrow.html

I leave it as an exercise for the reader how this relates to the feature voting tool.

Great contribution, Dyne. I'll do some reading.
Though at the moment I think "p2p: say yes or no" would have done the trick for this one in isolation, and it looks like your theorem might have little to say on that.

What we actually have is "p2p: say yes or shut-up".

Not easy to defend, is it ? Anyone willing to try ?

I'd appreciate not having words put in my hands. I had two points, the votiing system is a farce and there are some functional reasons why restoring P2P would be a Good Thing. I said nothing about excuses or justifications as they don't need them.

As a matter of fact, LL ran the idea of restoring P2P teleports up the proverbial flagpole many months ago and were shot down by the telehub land speculators as it would constitute a "taking" that we usually compensate landholders for in the US. I hypothesize that LL is looking to optimize the asset serving for stuff that is actually needed and are trying to irritate as few speculators as possible. I think P2P would be a good thing for all and a cost for a handful of speculators that may fail to realize anticipated profits. I don't think LL needs justification or excuse (or compensation to land speculators); if they choose to use the votes to support their agenda, good for them.

Ellie,

I agree with you that the current implementation of the voting system is flawed.

I think the problem you will have in proving this (and maybe some of the passive resistance you're seeing here) is that none of the proposals that have passed so far are really polarizing issues, P2P included.

I also agree that P2P is a bad idea but I think you are correct in your assessment that it is the will of the people.

Until such a time that an extremely divisive proposal is accepted I think the pervading sentiment is unfortunately that of "If it's not broke don't fix it".

Malachi. I've read your post again more carefully, and I see I read too much into your final paragraph. You did not say that. I apologize. Thats a bit of a relief. It was a disturbing viewpoint. Glad no-one seems to have it.

Beautifully summarized, Intent. I'd like to see it fixed before we come to such an issue. Sounds like maybe you would too. This one (p2p) might have been it, but it looks like it wasn't, if we can go on forum postings, which I think in this instance we can.

I think I feel a crusade coming on

Certainly I'd like to see it fixed sooner than later.

However, I think your "Ellie crusade" would be more effective on the heels of a less popular proposal. I think this feature (though controversial) is much more popular than the number of votes which it received reveals.

Oh gosh, Intent. If I crusade for improvement of the voting system p2p won't even be mentioned. For precisely your reasons. People want it, so the voting system did no harm.