Print

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

[einstein9073]

Spoiler: oops, nm (click to show/hide)

How can I change my votes?

The page has three controls: a list with checkboxes, a dropdown, and a submit button.

The most natural action is to select the new items I want to vote for, "Vote for selected suggestions", and hit "Go". This does not work: the page informs me "You have specified too many votes. Only the first three have been counted." and does not honor my choices.

The second choice is to try to then "wipe votes from selected suggestions" and revote. This does not work: the page informs me I don't have admin rights to those suggestions. (WTF?)

The third choice is to try the "Edit selected suggestions". This doesn't work for the same reason as #2.

The remaining choices in the dropdown are obviously wrong: create new suggestion; delete selected suggestions.


So. How do I change my votes?

well never mind. I just tried the EXACT SAME THING AGAIN and it worked this time. :|

[MaDeR Levap]

I think EVS should be reformed from scratch afrer every major release anyway.

[RCIX]

@NW_Kohaku: Do you got by the name Latrodectus Mactans on another game? Because i know someone just like you who assumes people are idiots (except himself of course) and goes from there.

All i want to do is improve the game; if i come off as demanding or anything, i don't mean to. And regarding why i'm "spamming" suggestions, that's just what i do. I like to come up with new ideas for things, and i don't generally expect opposition on things because i don't always think them through. But on this board it seems that there's a 1-a-day maximum on new suggestions despite not seeing any notice of such things around.

And the only reason the "more plantlife" thread is the way it is, is because i haven't had the time the past couple of days to polish it more. Is that a crime?

And i have played the game, and i do see the need for improved performance. I also would like something to be done for hauling, though i'm honestly not sure what (carrying multiple things sounds like a stopgap solution). If i "slammed" a suggestion without examining it fully, i apologize. Like i said before, i don't alwways think through things. Too bad that gets you into a ton of trouble here.

I make 1 (just one) suggestion based on a misunderstanding, and now all of my efforts are based on that (which, by the way, did get something useful out of it)? Yeah, that's real fair.

but I always try to confront any idea with its possible negative ramifications, and questions its assumptions.  Good suggestions should weather such punishment, and all but the worst can be re-examined to become good. 

I see this a lot from you, and not just for suggestions. You've met several of my topics with extreme negativity, making me think that you think that i'm just out to destroy this community. I'm not. I'll say it again: i'm a tad on the impulsive side.

If this is just how you come off, and you don't really mean to be this upset at me, then it's all good.

[Draco18s]

well never mind. I just tried the EXACT SAME THING AGAIN and it worked this time. :|

It should have been the first choice.  I haven't played with "wipe votes" but I think it means that all of the votes on the selected suggestions are removed (suggestion creator only).  Edit and Delete suggestions are likewise creator-only.  Something must have bugged out the first time.

[G-Flex]

I'm not sure who, exactly, you are saying is being excluded, here.  If we are talking about peopel who are scared away from the game, and hence the forums, because of some aspect of the game, then they aren't going to be voting on anything, no matter what voting system we use, so there would be no point in changing anything to accomidate them.

I'm not saying it's something with a viable alternative, just that it is a flaw with the current system. Yes, it's still relevant to point out flaws that can't be fixed, because you need to take those flaws into consideration when interpreting the data.

Umm... I like the inter-breeding suggestion, which is a fairly small one.  I like several of the things at the top of the list, but don't feel the need to vote for most of them, because I know that they have far more votes than suggestions lower down on the list, and hence, there is little risk of them slipping down in the polls without my vote.

In other words, you have to engage in political-style vote-distribution instead of just plain voting for whatever you'd vote for if you didn't previously know how many votes things had otherwise. You're basically just pointing out that, for reasons of how the system works, you cannot vote completely honestly.

Of course, this only holds if Toady follows a strict and mechanistic determination of which suggestions go into the game based on an arbitrarily decided number of top-ranking suggestions, instead of using his own judgement on any given suggestion.  I don't speak for Toady, but if something is ranked 19th, and takes him only 10 minutes to program, we might just be seeing that before something ranked 9th that takes him a year and breaks saves to impliment.

Oh, I know, but users might not use such judgement when viewing things for themselves.

This is a place for suggestion and debate.  Saying that there is something with any given subject is necessarily followed by the question, "So how can it be made better?"  I am hardly opposed to the very concept that the ESV be changed or improved, but I always try to confront any idea with its possible negative ramifications, and questions its assumptions.  Good suggestions should weather such punishment, and all but the worst can be re-examined to become good.

I wasn't intending to give concrete suggestions on how to improve the current system. I was attempting to point out its flaws in order that its data might be more accurately interpreted (or, more likely, pointing out how difficult it is to consider them to be "accurate").

[NW_Kohaku]

I'm not saying it's something with a viable alternative, just that it is a flaw with the current system. Yes, it's still relevant to point out flaws that can't be fixed, because you need to take those flaws into consideration when interpreting the data.

... But still irrelevant.

How, for example, can we take people who aren't willing to play or comment on the game into account?  Who gets to determine what the non-voters secretly really meant to have voted for?  Does this mean I can just assume that somewhere out there, there's a few million people who agree with me, but are simply being driven away by the fact that they hate DF and don't want to play it, and try and use this to out-weigh the will of the actual players who are involved enough to be voting and suggesting? ("Wii motion games are really popular right now, so obviously, we need to have motion sensor and voice-recognition technology integrated into DF to completely replace the interface with spastically jerking your body like a stranded fish at the menu to select things, and screaming out commands at your monitor to direct dwarves who will do whatever they damn well please as your only means of so-called control!") I somehow doubt that strategy would be appreciated.

In other words, you have to engage in political-style vote-distribution instead of just plain voting for whatever you'd vote for if you didn't previously know how many votes things had otherwise. You're basically just pointing out that, for reasons of how the system works, you cannot vote completely honestly.

So a system is flawed because understanding its mechanics leads to being better able to use that system?  (You'll have a tough time at DF if you don't game the system, you know...)

Yes, we could, theoretically have an infinite number of votes so we could vote for each one if we wanted, but if I gave it to every single one, then the purpose of the ESV, whose limited number of votes forces you to prioritize, would be defeated.

If you want to argue against the goal of prioritization, on the other hand, we're talking about an entirely different argument.

I wasn't intending to give concrete suggestions on how to improve the current system. I was attempting to point out its flaws in order that its data might be more accurately interpreted (or, more likely, pointing out how difficult it is to consider them to be "accurate").

Well, ultimately, if any one system would be completely optimal in all situations, any debate over it would largely be trying to re-invent the wheel, anyway.  That means we have to compare possible solutions for the imperfect solution that best fits the need, and as such, a lack of alternates that can compete do not make a system perfect, but do make comparison to a non-existant hypothetical a little on the fruitless side.

[G-Flex]

I'm not saying it's something with a viable alternative, just that it is a flaw with the current system. Yes, it's still relevant to point out flaws that can't be fixed, because you need to take those flaws into consideration when interpreting the data.

... But still irrelevant.

How, for example, can we take people who aren't willing to play or comment on the game into account?  Who gets to determine what the non-voters secretly really meant to have voted for?

You keep misinterpreting me.

I am not saying that the faults within the system can be fully accounted for or counteracted by any means. I bring them up to make it clear what those faults may be and where, and to point out that the ESV is necessarily flawed and incomplete and should not be relied on beyond a certain token amount.

That's it. I'm not trying to fix it, because a lot of the things I mentioned simply couldn't be "fixed" to begin with.

So a system is flawed because understanding its mechanics leads to being better able to use that system?  (You'll have a tough time at DF if you don't game the system, you know...)

No, it's flawed because the conceit of the system is to vote for the three things you want most, yet in practice this winds up not being the case.

but do make comparison to a non-existant hypothetical a little on the fruitless side.

Have you ever looked up anything about, say, statistics and polling? Considering this stuff is important even when there is no alternative, because acknowledging the flaws of the system used necessarily affects how you interpret the data.

[NW_Kohaku]

You keep misinterpreting me.

I am not saying that the faults within the system can be fully accounted for or counteracted by any means. I bring them up to make it clear what those faults may be and where, and to point out that the ESV is necessarily flawed and incomplete and should not be relied on beyond a certain token amount.

That's it. I'm not trying to fix it, because a lot of the things I mentioned simply couldn't be "fixed" to begin with.

...

Have you ever looked up anything about, say, statistics and polling? Considering this stuff is important even when there is no alternative, because acknowledging the flaws of the system used necessarily affects how you interpret the data.

Which again means "irrelevant".

No, it's flawed because the conceit of the system is to vote for the three things you want most, yet in practice this winds up not being the case.

So, it's flawed if I vote for the things I want most, which would be the things that are at the top, since that is "Vote for the top-itis", and it's also flawed if I vote for the things nearer the bottom that I don't want neglected. 

I'm starting to get how this game works with you.

[G-Flex]

Which again means "irrelevant".

It's not irrelevant for anyone actually looking at and interpreting the votes, which is obviously the entire point or else voting wouldn't be done. I've already explained why, and I'm sure anyone else reading this can understand that. I'm not going to explain that again.

So, it's flawed if I vote for the things I want most, which would be the things that are at the top, since that is "Vote for the top-itis", and it's also flawed if I vote for the things nearer the bottom that I don't want neglected. 

I'm starting to get how this game works with you.

Yes, it's flawed either way. The system isn't perfect, and the way you vote will both reflect that and fail to completely account for it. I honestly don't see what's hard to understand about that.

[Draco18s]

Yes, it's flawed either way. The system isn't perfect, and the way you vote will both reflect that and fail to completely account for it. I honestly don't see what's hard to understand about that.

A system can't be flawed in both (mutually exclusive) directions at the same time.

[G-Flex]

Yes, it's flawed either way. The system isn't perfect, and the way you vote will both reflect that and fail to completely account for it. I honestly don't see what's hard to understand about that.

A system can't be flawed in both (mutually exclusive) directions at the same time.

It's... not.

In this case, it's flawed in the sense that voting honestly doesn't work (which negatively impacts the main conceit of voting), and voting more strategically/politically sort of works but necessarily winds up misrepresenting what you actually want to some degree.

[Draco18s]

In this case, it's flawed in the sense that voting honestly doesn't work (which negatively impacts the main conceit of voting)

Doesn't work for whom?

[G-Flex]

I was working off what NW_Kohaku said - that simply voting for what you like best isn't the way to get things done, because some things wind up overrepresented.

[Jiri Petru]

If it were up to me, I would use only broader suggestions.

Honestly, I can't be bothered to read three hundred minor suggestions that are for the most part just different takes on the same issue. I hate people spamming the Eternal list with minor things because it makes the list almost unusable. It's so large that when I'm in the second half, I don't even remember the suggestions from the beginning. How can I prioritise then? IMHO, the max. number of suggestions for the list to be user-friendly would be a couple of dozens, not hundreds. If you are concerned about usability of the list, G-Flex: it's length is a major issue. Wiping the whole list and starting anew would have the added benefit of making it small and readable again.

Voting for threads here in the suggestions forum would be even worse. There's eight thousands of them, you can't be serious!!!

With all respect, G-Flex, you examples I couldn't disagree with more. "Carry more items" is a horrible suggestion that only makes the list more convoluted, and is better served by "Improve hauling". "Separate bags from boxes" is a horrible suggestion that would better be included in a larger "rework the stockpile categories" or something. Also, I can't possibly vote for something as small as "carry more items", because it doesn't really solve the overarching issue of bad hauling, and as an isolated suggestion it's almost meaningless. The reason why the top rating suggestions are so popular isn't only because they're broad, it's also because they're well thought-out and useful. They usually link to a massive thread full of minor suggestions and a rich discussion, while also allowing some space for Toady's creativity - the popular Underground Improvements and More Mechanics are great examples. I really wish everyone would take the time to back up their suggestion by a forum thread with a well-thought system, nuances, etc., instead of posting each detail separately. If there's any problem with the current suggestion system, it's that people don't put enough effort into their suggestion before posting.

That being said, I wouldn't force any official limit on the broadness of suggestions. Let it flow naturally, the bad, small ones will naturally drop where they below - down to the bottom.

-----

The current system seems good enough to me. If there's anything I would do aside from wiping it, it would be:
- Force linking suggestions to a thread here. You wouldn't be able to post a eternal suggestion without posting a thread here first. This could actually prevent some people from spamming the list.
- Allow more votes. I still think limited votes are good, because we want people prioritising, but considering how many suggestions we have, perhaps increasing the number of votes to 5 would be nice. 10 seems like to much, to be honest. The number should be limited enough to force you to pick only a handful of favorites.

[RCIX]

How is, just to name a few, Bloodline naming, Paint stuff, Sand Fluid Physics, Wildlife Repopulation, Ceramics and Cement, or a winch different takes on the same suggestion?