Print

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

YES! (i would use it)

NO! (i would not use it, and i think it is pointless/unethical/gross etc.)

yes, but i would dissable it if it was an init option (all yes voters are assumed to be for an init option, only vote here if you think it should be included but you would not use it)

[PTTG??]

Really, there are more better things(in my opinion) to implement before Toady even considers putting in poo.

Finishing the army arc, persistent/active world, leaving a fort and coming back as an adventurer or taking control of it again after doing something else and other stuff.

The INIT option doesn't necessarily mean yes.  Its the more reasonable middle ground... it is also for people who don't care as much either way pick.  (Disclaimer: Generalization does not apply to everyone.)

While it's true that there are higher priorities than strictly "Add Poop", various other things such as the generalization of fluids and a number of other elements behind, so to speak, this idea are in and of themselves goals. And I myself don't see the addition of waste management as an immediate goal, just something that could, eventually, be done.

And I suppose it's worth pointing out that we should never forget that Toady One has the only vote that counts. If he says "No", it's no, and I won't complain. Well, I might complain just a little, but I'll know that it's a done deal.

[lucusLoC]

i would like to point out that the third option is worded in such a way that people who vote for it think that it *should* be included, but that they would turn it off. i specifically worded it that way for a reason. there is no other reason to vote for option 3. if that is not your sentiment and you voted for option 3 is suggest you change your vote.

[Zangi]

i would like to point out that the third option is worded in such a way that people who vote for it think that it *should* be included, but that they would turn it off. i specifically worded it that way for a reason. there is no other reason to vote for option 3. if that is not your sentiment and you voted for option 3 is suggest you change your vote.

Yea, biased choices engineered to favor the 'yes'.

[lucusLoC]

you think so? have any other options you would like to see? i think "yes", "no", and "yes but i would not use it" nicely cover the possibilities i saw in other threads. i suppose i could have gotten more granular with strong yes/no and also a "don't care" but i was really trying to make people make a choice one way or another. you can either vote to include it or vote not to include it, and you can say you will use it or you can say you will not use it. there really is no bias in it, because the questions are clearly stated, and i do not control the votes. i fail to see how that is "engineered to favor yes," but perhaps you would like to clarify your position.

[qwertyuiopas]

I estimate that maybe 5% of the NO! votes are "No, I don't want Toady to stop working on other improvements to add this shit, but would be okay if he waited until a better time to add it"

Also, people who say NO! but want to have it possible to add through the raws, the best way would be if Toady made an official raw-implementation, possibly only on a test-creature, because that way he can add features to support it years sooner than he would otherwise. Plus, that would likely lead to raw-defined init toggles, and from that you can get mods with real options that don't involve "Use this raw file if you want this option, otherwise use that".

[lucusLoC]

actually i kind of agree with you qwerty. if anything this vote is slightly biased towards the "no" side. technically to be 100% fair i would need a "no, but i would use it if it was in." i do not think that is going to be a huge percentage of the no votes, so i doubt it would alter the stats significantly. i only put in the "yes but i would turn it off" because i had seen several posts to that effect in other threads, so it seemed like at lease a sort of common sentiment.

also, the intention of the vote was to find out how much support there was for an official sewage mechanic. i doubt many people would be opposed to making it available to be modded in, so a vote on that would probably be a fairly useless.

[Corona688]

actually i kind of agree with you qwerty. if anything this vote is slightly biased towards the "no" side.

Yeah, because two thirds of the options are 'yes', one of them in a weaselly way that actually means no when you think about it except when you do.  9.9  Confusing options make everything fairer.

Sooner or later the raws will include features that people will use to mod in feces.  Good for them.  Don't see why we need to work for feces specifically when the majority don't want to use it.

[Corona688]

I estimate that maybe 5% of the NO! votes are "No, I don't want Toady to stop working on other improvements to add this shit, but would be okay if he waited until a better time to add it"

I estimate a 50% probability that you pulled this statistic out of the same place this feature would have stuff coming out of.

[Djohaal]

Double trolling! This thread gets even better! 

[Zangi]

I'd actually use 'poo' it if it was Toady implemented.

Otherwise, I wouldn't touch it... and as I said, I believe there are better things for Toady to work on.

[lucusLoC]

yes, but is "no, but i would use it" really a useful metric for this discussion? i believe "yes, df need this to be feature complete, but i would not personally use it" is a valid metric, and for this reason i added it in. those people kinda have a foot in each camp. the "no but i would..." crowd don't really, because they still think it should not be included, and it is irrelevant to the discussion if they would use it or not.

i really do not appreciate all the unsubstantiated claims of bias in the poll, especially when those who make the claim will not actually address my challenge to prove it. don't just put up a straw man, tell me why option 3 is biased and not pertinent to the discussion. again, the options are clearly stated and hard to misinterpret. the number of "yes" vs. "no" options is only relevant if people pick one by random chance. only then would you be able to state that it is biased towards yes.

again, the only people who could possibly have a gripe with this poll are the people who are for it, because the people who would actually use the feature if it was put in are not accurately measured since all "no" votes are assumed to also be people who will not use it. i think, however, that for the purpose of this discussion (i.e. how much community support there is/isn't) that is a perfectly ok assumption.

[Sowelu]

You know, I think it would be a pretty neat engineering challenge.  Designing a sewage system would be pretty neat.

But considering how graphic the rest of DF is, what with strangling people with their own intestines etc, I REALLY don't want my sewage system to be in that kind of detail.

There's a reason I don't play RPGs like FATAL.  Ugh.

[Tenebrais]

Perhaps a better breakdown of voting options would be "Yes: waste management is an interesting challenge", "Yes: I want to drown elves in poop", "No: It is unseemly" and "No: The time would be better spent elsewhere". Just a thought.

[lucusLoC]

that would be true is you wanted to know the motivations for the vote, but i would imagine that people would complain that their exact reason was not represented. also your second option is bating, and will take away a lot of the votes from the first option because people want to be funny. see my save compat vote for the reason why i will try to never put a funny/shocking vote in a poll again. it just screws up the results. also, as per my early post, motivation is not really relevant to discussing how much support there is.

[Tenebrais]

Perhaps it's just not worded best. I tried to distinguish between people who want the challenge of a system (and thus aren't concerned so much with faeces as with simply dealing with some form of waste), people who actually want sewage for a carnal sort of fun, people outright opposed to the idea and those who are opposed just because they'd prefer other things.