Ok, real talk. Player/Alliance votes

[Micchan]

4 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Can we just start a war over this? 

That's my hope

[Roquentin]

 I don't think anyone said that Zeebrus was anti-IQ as a general matter. They reacted to the idea of throwing out the vote because of the way we voted based on the consensus between the people who normally participate on the forums who typically  don't lean in that direction. As Curufinwe noted, there's a silent majority of people who usually don't go out of their way to make their voices heard. I don't think she meant harm and is genuinely motivated by a sense of wanting the awards to go to whoever is objectively the best etc.. We don't really have the same idealistic notions with regards to the awards as that isn't really the precedent set in them in the past as they've always been political. We can work on refining them as Edward and Buorhann have proposed, but this is their current format.

[Who Me]

In popularity contests rarely do the best people win.

[Auctor]

This idea that multiple individual people ~who are all fully entitled to vote~ all voting for the same thing amounts to "rigging" is beyond silly. Rigging would be if we interfered with the mechanism of the vote itself to ensure the outcome couldn't possibly reflect the majority will of the voters.

[Kasikil]

6 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

There’s going to be a new vote, don’t worry about it. I talked to Bezzers and he said he’s alright with it. I’m also pushing for the voters to be public so if another vote trolling happens, certain votes can be nullified, and the rightful people will get their awards.

 

It should be within the next few days that the new polls are opened

Certain votes can be nullified...

Yeah, because mobilizing voters should be suppressed when we disagree with them. Very sound logic.

[Adrienne]

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

 I don't think anyone said that Zeebrus was anti-IQ as a general matter. They reacted to the idea of throwing out the vote because of the way we voted based on the consensus between the people who normally participate on the forums who typically  don't lean in that direction. As Curufinwe noted, there's a silent majority of people who usually don't go out of their way to make their voices heard. I don't think she meant harm and is genuinely motivated by a sense of wanting the awards to go to whoever is objectively the best etc.. We don't really have the same idealistic notions with regards to the awards as that isn't really the precedent set in them in the past as they've always been political. We can work on refining them as Edward and Buorhann have proposed, but this is their current format.

As one of the silent majority on the OWF you're referring to, I have to disagree with this. The OWF isn't the only way to judge community. We have an extremely active network of discord(/slack) channels and private alliance forums that obviously figure into things as well and on which people tend to be more forthcoming. I don't have any particular issue with IQ but I think the clear coordination of literally every category goes above and beyond merely suggesting votes like many of you have claimed to be doing. 

[Element]

6 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

There’s going to be a new vote, don’t worry about it. I talked to Bezzers and he said he’s alright with it. I’m also pushing for the voters to be public so if another vote trolling happens, certain votes can be nullified, and the rightful people will get their awards.

 

It should be within the next few days that the new polls are opened

Well that's lame and unfair. My vote was not a troll and I voted for the ones that you complainers have been complaining and disagreeing about because it's my objective view and opinion. You're not really all that funny to me, so since I chose someone else I'm going to be assumed a vote troll and my vote nullified? Seriously?

 

5 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

No

And no.

 

Because of troll people we’re not going to be censoring and discarding the votes of every single person in IQ. Your votes will obviously still count, and this has nothing to do with opinion, if I’m allowed to have the voters public, I’m gonna make damn sure  the people I pick to help me go through it all are unbiased.

 

What I want is a fair vote. While I appear to be the minority, I’m going to make sure I get one. And I’d sooner let the trolling continue than I would allow legitimate votes to be censored out. 

There’s lots of people clearly upset that there’s a blatant trolling of the votes, people least deserving of titles in most people’s eyes being the Trail Blazers of topics because “Hey tell your alliance to vote X, X and X  as best this that and whatever”.

 

Im sure there’s people legitimately voting for them, but when there’s like 80 or 90 votes for random people who really aren’t very known, it’s not all legitimate votes.

 

The player votes are something that happen once a year, I’m sure to IQ and all those people it’s just harmless fun and trolling, but it’d be nicer to have deserving people get what they deserve.

 

To the best of my ability I’ll see to it being an unbiased, fair vote, where people who the community legitimately see fit for awards get them. And if I fail, whatever mess there currently is can be the official one and I’ll request my topic be cancelled due to unfair play.

All I ask is that you guys over there could help me, and tell me if maybe there’s an alliance or multiple that are spam voting someone “because they’re in my alliance, they need all the votes”

See above

And how exactly do you intend to determine whether someone's vote was legitimate or a troll? That's a bunch of BS and you know it. 

 

5 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

Go on, deny it.

Roq told me himself that that’s what’s happening. To me it just an excuse for calling a fair vote, one which adheres to your individual choices and not one done by all members of this community. 

 

Also I think you missed (twice now) that I said (three times now) this is nothing to do with my opinion, but the community isn’t happy with this. 

Okay, if that's what you think. I don't recall that being the case, as I had freedom to choose whoever I please. Right now it's you and your kin that are making me feel like I am forced to pick who YOU want me to pick. And in case you haven't seen, these very people complaining have also come out and confessed to doing this in previous award votes. Sounds to me like a bunch of freaking hypocrites trying to off your guilt onto people that have no involvement with such activity because their attempt to repeat the same vote rigging failed? Hmm... That's pretty sketchy, not going to lie. Whatever, you guys can have your awards I will no longer be participating if this is how it's going to be where I can only vote if I vote for who you agree with. That's exactly what this is all about, don't sit and try to say otherwise because I'm not as stupid as you think. 

And wait.. The community isn't happy with this? You mean EMC isn't happy with this? According to the votes and replies to the thread that it's only EMC players who are unhappy for not winning the vote. If EMC is what you define as the community, then what are those of us in IQ? 

[Rache Olderen]

5 minutes ago, Auctor said:

This idea that multiple individual people ~who are all fully entitled to vote~ all voting for the same thing amounts to "rigging" is beyond silly. Rigging would be if we interfered with the mechanism of the vote itself to ensure the outcome couldn't possibly reflect the majority will of the voters.

Yes, now we need to get to returning all those people's families.

5 minutes ago, Kasikil said:

Certain votes can be nullified...

Yeah, because mobilizing voters should be suppressed when we disagree with them. Very sound logic.

Kasi you know the state we live in. It is nothing new with us.  

[Guest Karl VII]

1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

As one of the silent majority on the OWF you're referring to, I have to disagree with this. The OWF isn't the only way to judge community. We have an extremely active network of discord(/slack) channels and private alliance forums that obviously figure into things as well and on which people tend to be more forthcoming. I don't have any particular issue with IQ but I think the clear coordination of literally every category goes above and beyond merely suggesting votes like many of you have claimed to be doing. 

Idk about other IQ alliances, but in BK it was just an endorsement for certain candidates.

It was even explicitly stated that voting for the endorsed candidates was not mandatory and not doing so would not result in punishment of any sorts.

Also the votes are anonymus, so it would be impossible to find out anyway.

[Rache Olderen]

1 minute ago, Karl VII said:

Idk about other IQ alliances, but in BK it was just an endorsement for certain candidates.

It was even explicitly stated that voting for the endorsed candidates was not mandatory and not doing so would not result in punishment of any sorts.

Same for CS.

 

1 minute ago, Karl VII said:

 

Also the votes are anonymus, so it would be impossible to find out anyway.

That is why we just purge them all. Just to make sure.

[Element]

4 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

Okay, this is going to be my last say on the matter, in part because I realized something, but also because my iPad is like 5 minutes from dying and I won’t have access to a charger for like 4 hours

 

So, let me first make two things crystal clear:

I don’t care how my votes are, and I’m NOT against IQ 

 

I simply saw that there’s a mass outcry against how the vote appears to have been tampered with, completely tipped towards those IQ voted for.

 

Seeing this outcry and many, many complaints I wanted to help. To try and offer an idea for how we could fix this an make everyone happy.

 

Now I’m seeing the same thing again, for the other side. 

 

I don’t want to upset people

And seeing how angry people are at me, and how passionate they are about defending the current poll, I’m going to step back. There’s no way here to please everyone, and I’m not one for upsetting people, I really would rather not.

 

So I leave my ideas here, do with them what you want, cause the fact stays the same, I really don’t care how the vote ends, I just wanted to make the community happy

 

GG and sorry for not talking more to IQ on the problem before offering an idea

 

Adios 

Oooo an outcry from what, like 4 people? That's massive? That's news to me. 

[justakittywithabox]

So, certain people are pissy because the votes aren't going the way the wanted.

Why should we entertain crybabies?

[Guest Curufinwe]

20 minutes ago, Karl VII said:

Idk about other IQ alliances, but in BK it was just an endorsement for certain candidates.

It was even explicitly stated that voting for the endorsed candidates was not mandatory and not doing so would not result in punishment of any sorts.

Also the votes are anonymus, so it would be impossible to find out anyway.

Pretty much - all we do is get our people to the polling place.  Once they are sealed into the voting cubicle what happens next is entirely out of our hands and they are free to vote as they please.

[Rache Olderen]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Pretty much - all we do is get our people to the polling place.  Once they are sealed into the voting cubicle what happens next is entirely out of our hands and they are free to vote as they please.

We unfortunately haven't perfected spying on them while they vote yet.

[Element]

4 hours ago, Rache Olderen said:

Ah, I don't recall complaints about that in the past. So apologies for not knowing of any that has happened. Back when I was in Syndisphere I kinda ignored everything Paracov said (no offense guys ) 

 

As for that I am more going for "Crash an OWF circle jerk before it happens and make everyone salty" but that is my personal motive. That and it gives us something to do.

I nominate @Bot because, since he is a robot, he will be completely impartial and unbiased.

But a robot wouldn't be completely unbiased. It would technically be biased based on what it's programmer programmed it to be like.

[Rache Olderen]

1 minute ago, element85 said:

But a robot wouldn't be completely unbiased. It would technically be biased based on what it's programmer programmed it to be like.

Shush That is exactly why.

[Shadowthrone]

13 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Pretty much - all we do is get our people to the polling place.  Once they are sealed into the voting cubicle what happens next is entirely out of our hands and they are free to vote as they please.

 

Shhh, its all just Roquentin voting. We're just masks he wears to different halloween parties! This year he wanted to be a brown dude, and hence he created my persona. 

[Buorhann]

Alright guys, if you're not going to contribute to solutions and whatnot, go !@#$ off.  There's the Alliance/Player threads to go shitpost in.

EDIT:

Actually, !@#$ it.  The fact there's 5 pages of stupidity and 1 page of good discussion, forget it.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Buorhann

[Who Me]

We get it, everyone was fine with how the vote was run until EMC started losing the vote so now you all want to change it to exclude those people you don't want to let vote.

[Element]

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Alright guys, if you're not going to contribute to solutions and whatnot, go !@#$ off.  There's the Alliance/Player threads to go shitpost in.

Ok if you want a solution. Then there should be zero human input on who "deserves" each award. Have a tracking system that records all of the statistics of every action and activity through the entire year and issue the awards based on that. As one said previously, best alliance growth.. Well, which alliance statistically grew the most? That can definitely be measured. But what do we measure it by? Score, number of cities, or number of players or do we have one category for each of those? Best military... Okay, all the wars that took place over the year calculate their total damage. The one that issued the most damage, bingo... There's your damn solution, not that difficult. Now you gotta put your money where your mouth is because the stats I've seen show that a good 90% of the current poll standings are accurate, so I guess you might even disagree and say that's rigged too. So no, there will never be a solution...because admit it..you don't really want a solution, you want the win for yourself regardless. 

[Guest Curufinwe]

33 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Shhh, its all just Roquentin voting. We're just masks he wears to different halloween parties! This year he wanted to be a brown dude, and hence he created my persona. 

An accurate depiction of Roq according to EMC propaganda.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Curufinwe

[Buorhann]

17 minutes ago, element85 said:

so I guess you might even disagree and say that's rigged too. So no, there will never be a solution...because admit it..you don't really want a solution, you want the win for yourself regardless. 

You guys are always falling back on this.  Like, seriously, over 80% of the replies has some petty passive aggressive jab about "OH YOU WANT THE WIN WAAAH".

I personally care less about the current votes.  I'm looking forward to next years.  This year is already screwed.  Let it go.

We've seen in the past how silly it can be, and we've seen now how silly it can be.

I've been on your side of the argument before and with the current way how voting is, I'm still on that side, however - you dumbasses are making it so very hard to support.  Seriously, some of you  go "We've been avoiding the forums" but now?   On voting, you're not avoiding the forums?  So weird.  Like you guys could've just mass voted as usual, then remained  quiet, and just watch the salt and enjoy the drama with some popcorn, but no...

Don't get me wrong though, I'm enjoying this to some extent, but I wish all of you whiners and salt miners would've kept your cancerous posts in the other threads where it was already occurring.

[Mayor]

I think it would be better to just have public votes and then weed out the self-voting guys. I mean I voted NPO for best Economic System because honestly it works. Their growth is good and their system stops me from raiding them. I voted Rose for most powerful, and obviously Arrgh for most immoral. If it was public my self votes could be seen and removed. We could also do it in a way that if I *wanted* to vote Arrgh then I'd better have a good reason/description to back-up my self-vote (this would go in the thread I guess). This would take a while going through the votes individually though and adds more work to an already boring task.

[Who Me]

These polls are popularity contests, why shouldn't you be able to vote for yourself or your alliance?

[Rache Olderen]

5 minutes ago, Who Me said:

These polls are popularity contests, why shouldn't you be able to vote for yourself or your alliance?

I'm certain Trump and Clinton voted for themselves.