Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Light forger]

Trader Actions
0 - Give him Dogwood Wands+Tree:
0 - Give him more Crystal Weapons+Apprentice:
0 - Give him Everything:
6 - Send Everything including Roboson: Roboson, Azzuro, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Lightforger
1 - The viking way: RAM
1 - Send Everything including Roboson and contingency: Andres


4 - Attack plains w/ primarily cavalry: Chiefwaffles, Roboson, Stabby, Lightforger
2 - Attack Eastern Sea: RAM, Roboson
1 - Send Myark to the Mountains: Azzuro

Orders
0 - Deploy frost towers at sea:
1 - Deploy Forever Frost along coast AND at sea if no penalty: Roboson

[Andres]

Here are the votes that have 3 or more votes to them.

Trader Actions
6 - Send Everything including Roboson: Roboson, Azzuro, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Lightforger


4 - Attack plains w/ primarily cavalry: Chiefwaffles, Roboson, Stabby, Lightforger

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Roboson]

It doesn't matter if you think they are wasting their vote. It's their vote, not yours. if they want to change it, they can always do so. You don't have a right to dictacte the way other people vote.

I second the seconding method.

[Andres]

It doesn't matter if you think they are wasting their vote. It's their vote, not yours. if they want to change it, they can always do so. You don't have a right to dictacte the way other people vote.

I second the seconding method.

What are you talking about?

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Roboson]

It doesn't matter if you think they are wasting their vote. It's their vote, not yours. if they want to change it, they can always do so. You don't have a right to dictacte the way other people vote.

I second the seconding method.

What are you talking about?

Glory to Arstotzka.

this.

-snip- No matter how you look at it, they almost certainly could have spent their vote better -snip-

Basically, every time that a proposal gets only the vote of its proposer, I feel that we see a vote that might have been spent to get a result that they wanted instead of buoying something that is not going to happen. They would, themselves, benefit, if everyone does it. And every tie that could be broken by all the proposers taking away their self-vote and putting it in as a best-of-the-rest vote is an example of freeing up votes that are spread out in order to focus them down to the consensually-agreed "pretty good" proposals. If you still get a tie after all the votes are directed to just a couple of ideas, then you have a tie because those ideas are really close in preference, and there really isn't much that can be done about that without restricting people's ability to express themselves...

The idea of regulating how people can and can't vote is not ok. If someone wants to "throw away" their vote on their idea because they think its what we need, thats up to them. There is no reason to tyrannically manage how people vote, its their vote and they should be able to do with it what they want.

Trader Actions
0 - Give him Dogwood Wands+Tree:
0 - Give him more Crystal Weapons+Apprentice:
0 - Give him Everything:
6 - Send Everything including Roboson: Roboson, Azzuro, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles, Stabby, Lightforger
1 - The viking way: RAM
1 - Send Everything including Roboson and contingency: Andres


4 - Attack plains w/ primarily cavalry: Chiefwaffles, Roboson, Stabby, Lightforger
2 - Attack Eastern Sea: RAM, Roboson
2 - Send Myark to the Mountains: Azzuro, Roboson

Orders
0 - Deploy frost towers at sea:
0 - Deploy Forever Frost along coast AND at sea if no penalty:

[/quote]

Changed my deployment vote.

[10ebbor10]

He's talking about Ram's insistence that everyone should not vote for their own thing.

On that matter, I am in full agreement with Roboson.

Consider this:  rather than proposing two things and immediately adding them to the list of votes, you can propose two things and for either of them to be added to the list you need two people to "second" each one..

Would create significant issues, as well as serious overhead.

Any discussion, no matter how mild, would drown out any new proposal. Also, who's going to keep track of endorsements and add them to the list?

[Andres]

((Perhaps, years or decades from now, we should make Alucard?))

[RAM]

It doesn't matter if you think they are wasting their vote. It's their vote, not yours. if they want to change it, they can always do so. You don't have a right to dictacte the way other people vote.

I second the seconding method.

Of course I don't have that right, which is why I am pointing out the benefits so that the majority can form an angry mob which, while not actually possessing superior rights(actually, the concept of rights is pretty much completely fictional to begin with) has a whole "might makes right" thing going for it...

But I am not aiming to impose my will on others, I am aiming to improve the extent to which the votes represent the community's will and increase the community's ability to reach consensus. I have only ever pointed out when people are or are not adhering to the principal, and if you impose yourself upon others to exclude the option to submit commentary than there is little than anyone can do to argue for any sort of change, thus making improvement largely a matter of pure chance...

prevents the list from inflating with zero and one vote items

I do not understand the problem with zero-vote items, as they do not influence the outcome. Is the screen-space they consume an issue?

And I will note that voting is currently regulated and enforced. I could switch to my weighted voted system, where I have one vote that is worth 4, one that is worth 3, and one that is worth 2. By doing so in the current system, I would then have a total of nine votes. I rather suspect that people would be rather vocal in preventing my use of such, and would remove my votes from the chart when they copy it. So I would ask that people who say "The idea of regulating how people can and can't vote is not ok" to kindly... accord themselves in a fashion that can be responded to without insults.

[Roboson]

He's talking about Ram's insistence that everyone should not vote for their own thing.

On that matter, I am in full agreement with Roboson.

Consider this:  rather than proposing two things and immediately adding them to the list of votes, you can propose two things and for either of them to be added to the list you need two people to "second" each one..

Would create significant issues, as well as serious overhead.

Any discussion, no matter how mild, would drown out any new proposal. Also, who's going to keep track of endorsements and add them to the list?

Actually yeah, I would say that any sort of regulation could have a negative impact on the discussion. Now that we've been using it, I don't really like the two proposals only rule. Someone can have three good ideas, it happens.

[evictedSaint]

Eh, I was just trying to think of a way to prevent more twenty item lists with a five-way tie with two votes each.

So long as it doesn't hold things up significantly when it's time to move to the next phase, you guys can regulate yourselves.

[Andres]

So when's the next update? I'm looking forward to seeing our wanderwaffe in action.

[evictedSaint]

As soon as I get done typing it up.  There's been shifts in battle doctrine on both sides and I want to do it justice.

[RAM]

Thankyou for supporting the game evictedSaint! It, ah, doesn't really get said much...
 People are generally only terrible because they care, which really doesn't help much...

[Roboson]

What if we organized the list by number of votes? That way it doesn't impede the ability for the GM (and players I guess) to see what has the most votes, and it doesn't limit the scope of the discussion to just a few options. In other words, it doesn't destroy the marketplace of ideas.

[RAM]

I worry that it is too much of a hassle for everyone to adopt, it means doing more than just copying the whole thing and changing a number... Also I feel that it'll focus people's attention to the top couple of items, so that new suggestion down the bottom will tend to get overlooked and people won't be as likely to change from the front0runners, but it will probably also reduce ties for much the same reasons...