This sounds good but will it lead to too many proposals? I for one think we should have a proposals window, perhaps 1 month out of every 6, then let the game be in its current state, so that investors have some idea that at least for the near future there won't be drastic changes to the game's economy affecting their asset values.

sounds like a great plan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ut8HupAxVY

# Now, Everybody is Happy!

Problem identified but I think the wrong solution, voting no but please rethink ,  and re propose

I've heard from quite a few frustrated people that they feel the pre-proposal process is hard to follow.  I think this change is good because it will give more people a chance to weigh in on legit proposals.  I agree that if you can get 5% of the total SPS in votes, then you have a proposal that should be considered.

I also think your point about making changes to the pre-proposal is not well known.  Some feel that if changes are made, then a new proposal must be put forth.  I can see both sides and feel that this is something you might want to re-iterate the next time you are on a town hall.

Overall I support any process that lets the community decide issues via good governance, and this I believe will give more SPS holders a voice since they will see the proposals via the ingame notifications.

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).

Agreed 100%

Congratulations @yabapmatt.sps! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

<table><tr><td><img src="https://images.hive.blog/60x70/http://hivebuzz.me/@yabapmatt.sps/upvoted.png?202305081619"></td><td>You received more than 500 upvotes.<br>Your next target is to reach 600 upvotes.</td></tr>
</table>

<sub>_You can view your badges on [your board](https://hivebuzz.me/@yabapmatt.sps) and compare yourself to others in the [Ranking](https://hivebuzz.me/ranking)_</sub>
<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>



**Check out our last posts:**
<table><tr><td><a href="/hive-122221/@hivebuzz/pum-202304-delegations"><img src="https://images.hive.blog/64x128/https://i.imgur.com/fg8QnBc.png"></a></td><td><a href="/hive-122221/@hivebuzz/pum-202304-delegations">Our Hive Power Delegations to the April PUM Winners</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="/hive-139531/@hivebuzz/proposal-2324"><img src="https://images.hive.blog/64x128/https://i.imgur.com/RNIZ1N6.png"></a></td><td><a href="/hive-139531/@hivebuzz/proposal-2324">The Hive Gamification Proposal</a></td></tr></table>

###### Support the HiveBuzz project. [Vote](https://hivesigner.com/sign/update_proposal_votes?proposal_ids=%5B%22248%22%5D&approve=true) for [our proposal](https://peakd.com/me/proposals/248)!

Hey Matt! Could you share the ways that ridiculous or unpopular proposals would be filtered out? I guess I've incorrectly assumed that voting them down in the pre-proposal stage was the way to go about it. Thanks!

I like the idea that downvotes don't kill a preproposal, since we've seen lots of people vote for a pre-proposal just so it passes into the broader game. I have two points that I'd like to perhaps clarify? [edit - three points]

#### FIRSTLY: If we make this change, can we still encourage and measure opposition votes?

I suspect that pre-proposals will have a tendency to look past much of the constructive feedback between the preproposal stage and the final proposal stage, since there is no way to measure actual opposition. One can naturally expect there will be a tendency to prioritize keeping supporters, rather than working with opposition since their impact can't be measured easily. Perhaps we still encourage and measure downvotes, but they don't prevent the proposal from advancing? 

Then the preliminary downvotes should somehow be disclosed or addressed in the final version of the actual SPS Proposal vote?

#### SECONDLY: Once a proposal is "out there" - should it be a "public good," instead of owned by the initiator?

As another concern, we've also seen that, in practice, proposals have been considered "owned" by the initiator...  despite the fact that it is the community that decides whether they advance.  Just as an example, @yabapmatt.sps - you made a suggestion and "**asked**" @theukm about modifying the anti-bot proposal. At that point, theukm's initial proposal already had enough support to have met the 5% vote to advance. But he, alone, had sole authority to modify the proposal drastically, even after a number of voters had already cast votes and it was the community, not theukm, that had voted to advance the initial version of the proposal. 

Ultimately, the sps community voted to approve the modified version, but once the community starts voting, I don't know that a preproposal should be owned by the initiator anymore? And especially, after a preproposal meets a level of support to advance, if  feedback should be consolidated and advanced by the community leaders, Splinterlands, or something similarly independent? 

The reason I think of this is, let's say an initial proposal was advanced, and based on feedback from the community, there was a block of 5% that voted to modify and advance a modified version. Can the initial submitter kill a community voted proposal, and withdraw their proposal if it's not in line with the initial vision, or has it become a public good once it's submitted?

#### THIRDLY: Can we include an ability to fast track pre-proposals and proposals if they are time sensitive? 

We saw with the Vruz proposal that it was killed due to a concern that there was a dangerous precedent of acting before authorized.
I'd suggest that a pre-proposal can be somehow be labelled as time-sensitive, and as soon as it hits the required 5% threshold, it is eligible to advance to the game. There should also be an option for a shortened official voting period as well, although it should require a sufficiently large base of voters to pass it. This is to give the DAO a mechanism to act quickly if conditions warrant it (e.g. a collapse of a DAO owned stablecoin, or some other black swan event)

Honestly while I approved of the idea, I'm a little disappointed with the engagement.  

I wish that there had been some discussion or attempt to address any of the questions here before this moved into the game for final vote...  this pre-proposal was authored, had limited engagement, and moved into the game without any responses, comments or any other indication whether any of the feedback was considered, or even read. No edits, no likes, no responses.

Splex says this proposal had 2% of staked SPS voting for it - by it's own standards it wouldn't even advance to the game for a vote. I get that the governance process isn't the most exciting thing in the Splintersphere, but this seems to have been completely forgotten about...

[...]  
> and in my opinion every reasonable proposal should have the opportunity to go to an official vote and be put in front of all active SPS stakeholders. 

[...]

Agree that every reasonable proposal should have a chance at least to be voted, the main problem is that what"reasonable" is changes for every person, it's very subjective. If there isn't a consensus imo it's fair to assume that wasn't reasonable for a majority of the stake (I mention stake because doesn't need really to be a majority). 

Imo would be fair to just make it a lower threshold to pass though. 

Does this mean we won't have half baked proposals put in front of us?

Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @yabapmatt.sps!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
[Link to this Pre-Proposal](https://splex.gg/proposals/8454)

> ***This Pre-Proposal is over!***
> 315 Users voted with 2% of the staked SPS supply at that time!

*Updated At: 2023-05-15 15:15 UTC*

![Summary](https://splex.gg/proposals/8454/png?ts1684163703)

 <center> This post has been supported by @Splinterboost with a 5% upvote! Delagate HP to Splinterboost to Earn Daily HIVE rewards for supporting the @Splinterlands community!</center> 

 <center> [ Delegate HP ](https://peakd.com/@splinterboost)  | [Join Discord](https://discord.gg/RK4ZHKmgcX) </center>