Jump to content
Buorhann

Ok, real talk. Player/Alliance votes

Recommended Posts

Having a young nation however is not in any shape or form an indicator of a brain that is underdeveloped or immature as is the case for restricting votes to adults.  I also believe that OWF has an age restriction to sign up ( impossible to police though). 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Micchan said:

In this thread I already said that if you don't come here you should not vote for categories related to this forum like best poster, and I said that many of the other categories should be voted by players who are playing this game enough to be able to do all those things you mentioned, players who know why they are voting an option and not players who vote the suggested option or the only option they know, this is why I suggested to count only votes with motivation for the next year

And do you know why you voted for who you voted for in every single award? Please do share your reasoning behind every single choice and I will do the same. Are you sure you're ready for that?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having people list why they voted for each option only proves that they have an opinion. Is that really in question?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Micchan said:

In this thread I already said that if you don't come here you should not vote for categories related to this forum like best poster, and I said that many of the other categories should be voted by players who are playing this game enough to be able to do all those things you mentioned, players who know why they are voting an option and not players who vote the suggested option or the only option they know, this is why I suggested to count only votes with motivation for the next year

If you think this is wrong we have to accept the fact that we have different opinions

I can't blame you

Yep,

this is why in politics to vote you must have a certain age

If it's such an issue, why is it just being brought up now? What exactly is the issue here? Why was this such an issue after a few days of voting?

Also why does it MATTER to know who voted who? To complain more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

The best change I believe as I stated earlier that @Buorhann might have missed is that those stats that can be measured be given by Alex and the staff, like best alliance growth, best membership growth, best military (he can track the damage) and we can discuss the parameters and set it up as a community (almost impossible, but one can dream) for the admins to take a final decision. The other perceptions would work on public relations and get out to vote strategies, but thats the most fair system since it gives all members equal opportunity to vote, regardless of their standing, or activity on PnW forums. The fact is we need a system that harmonises the vote for all sides, and any requirements apart from being a member of PnW, essentially disenfranchises new players and sets up an elitist structure which is unfair and bullshit when it comes to community votes. In essence a mixed system is far better for '18 than some sort of disenfranchising system which states that newer members cannot partake in community activities, just because they are new. 

This is the purpose (Or was) of the thread, to think tank on possible solutions, look through for any potential issues, and see if there are ways to manage them.

So I do appreciate those who actually contributed to the proper discussion at hand.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping the awards to objective stats as opposed to subjective opinion is possibly the best we will get. Most damage done by alliance in 2018 is easier than best military. It will not be perfect as most damage done will favour the alliance that gets the most ideal war scenario (lots of targets with high infra and inactive/uncoordinated players) but it is hard to argue that they didn't do the most damage. Best military is subjective (was BKs performance the best counting the position they were in vs the position their opponents were in etc.)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Buorhann said:

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.

Your posts doesn't look like you care less about votes. It was the same structure pnw forum was following for a few awards now, you never mentioned anything like this (afaik of in this scale), you find it a problem enough to make a post only after Inq members started to vote on, which is why I doubt your intentions. On the other hand, if TKR were to get votes like last time, you would've never pointed a finger in the process. I agree this can be improved, but not with people like you, you are always going to pick some biased approach in a diplomatic way and put it in forums.

5 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I mean I see your point about validity, but ultimately its a popularity contest and I doubt you'll be able to get a community consensus on nominations so I think it should just stay how it is.

The real problem imo is some of the categories are dumb and inherently biased just by being voted on.

Best Alliance Growth: Can be mostly objectively measured, 95% of alliances in the game would just not be eligible if we were being unbiased.

Best Economic System: This can't be known by people outside an alliance generally.

Best Recruiting Staff: Same reason, Lots of new members doesn't mean a good recruiting staff, the staff could be garbage and they could be a big alliance with a popular theme.

Most Active Alliance:  This can't be known by people outside an alliance generally.

Best Alliance for New Players: Also completely difficult to quantify without joining yourself.

 

Cutting back on some of these stupid categories that are literally only able to be voted on with bias might at least improve the awards a bit.

May be in categories like "best economic system" alliances can make it public how much taxes they are running at, how much they are receiving as taxes everyday, how efficiently they are managing, how is their econ different from others etc.., then make others vote on the options, we can expect some decent judgment from voters.

Recruiting staffs, it can be measured based on how many new members apply to each alliances. Since plenty of alliances use automatic bots to send messages, new members prefer attractive messages, some form of reply from the one who is sending messages, how well they received in the alliance etc.., (we can also have speed of recruitment bot as a criteria as well)

Most active alliance can be measured if we are measuring in-game activity. We can easily prepare a bot which logs in activity of members, see when they log in every day, how frequent they log in (same can be done for discord as well, using discord bots). So yeah, most of these things can be measured one way or another, but organizers of these events never did it in past and they didn't do it this year as well.

4 hours ago, Micchan said:

I think your opinion matters because you are here reading and posting, I already said it

I don't think the opinion of some random player who knows nothing should matter, this is why I would like to see the 2018 awards with motivated options that only people who really care about the community will make (and it also gives many talking points)

Who are you to decide who is random player and who is not? Anyone you don't know becomes "random"? I don't post on forums, I don't encourage our members to post on forums, but they are part of our community, they stay in contact in discord, they interact with others. It's not necessary for others to agree to your point of view, we can debate about various issues, but calling our votes as rigging or invalid is total BS.

Edited by Bot
typos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, justakittywithabox said:

Hooking up with an ex of the other alliance?

If we get desperate enough that might work. Rose, you guys got any protectorates you want to break up with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bot said:

Your posts doesn't look like you care less about votes. It was the same structure pnw forum was following for a few awards now, you never mentioned anything like this (afaik of in this scale), you find it a problem enough to make a post only after Inq members started to vote on, which is why I doubt your intentions. On the other hand, if TKR were to get votes like last time, you would've never pointed a finger in the process. I agree this can be improved, but not with people like you, you are always going to pick some biased approach in a diplomatic way and put it in forums.

I would've said the same thing regardless of who was spamming what votes.  Hell, I would've spammed the votes myself and still created the same thread.  You can still hold a discussion on finding solutions for future voting threads while still being a paranoid forum troll or a honest legit voter.  Doesn't matter, and it doesn't detract from the purpose of the thread.

The fact you and the others who are constantly pointing this out, while there has been no bias shown otherwise, shows just how paranoid and/or pessimistic you guys are.  You're merely reinforcing the view some people have on you guys that you keep bringing up.

Hell, some of you, who have complained about rig voting in the past had prime opportunities to contribute or start up a discussion yourself.  I literally had a good conversation going, no bias, no alliance calling, no insults - but we get this.

"OH YOU WONT DO IT IF TKR WAS WINNING BUT I HAVE NO PROOF OTHERWISE TO SHOW THIS"

That's basically you right now.

I mean, look at the suggestions I stated myself.  I literally stated that we have a rep from each alliance (YES THAT INCLUDES YOU GUYS) to form a council of sorts to weed through the nominations.

If I was bias with my approach, why would I suggest such a thing?  Get over it.  Yes, I don't like IQsphere and this shit is reinforcing it, but I can approach people with no bias to hold a legit discussion on something that is meant to be community friendly on a neutral level.  I even supported your sphere through this drama shit telling people they can mass vote themselves to counter it or just get over it.  It's silly.  But yet I'm still bias.  Ok.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I would've said the same thing regardless of who was spamming what votes.  Hell, I would've spammed the votes myself and still created the same thread.  You can still hold a discussion on finding solutions for future voting threads while still being a paranoid forum troll or a honest legit voter.  Doesn't matter, and it doesn't detract from the purpose of the thread.

The fact you and the others who are constantly pointing this out, while there has been no bias shown otherwise, shows just how paranoid and/or pessimistic you guys are.  You're merely reinforcing the view some people have on you guys that you keep bringing up.

Hell, some of you, who has complained about rig voting in the past had prime opportunities to contribute or start up a discussion yourself.  I literally had a good conversation going, no bias, no alliance calling, no insults - but we get this.

"OH YOU WONT DO IT IF TKR WAS WINNING BUT I HAVE NO PROOF OTHERWISE TO SHOW THIS"

That's basically you right now.

What I'm doing is pointing out the bias that you (and others from EMC) are showing. May be I'm biased, just like everyone else, but tell me this, if you are genuine about any change, why didn't you utter even a single thing till Inq votes started to land? You were assuming we are not going to participate?

The burden of showing the proof falls on you, show me a similar thread that you made in previous years about how flawed the process was. You can call me anything, paranoid or pessimistic, I don't mind frankly about those names. Also, when did I ever complain about rig voting in the past? What I find disgusting is, EMC members are complaining about something which we were all doing in the past polls.

Edited by Bot
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to point out the bias I showed.  I can easily show every post I replied with that supports your side through this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Feel free to point out the bias I showed.  I can easily show every post I replied with that supports your side through this.

You didn't utter a single word about how flawed the process is, till Inq votes started to come in, then start a post saying we need to reform things, this is what I called bias. Ofc you were diplomatic like usual.

Show me any forum post that you made regarding reforms to be made about how these polls are conducted before this.

Edited by Bot
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I even stated that I don't give a !@#$ about this year's voting.  I started the discussion for next year, or did you miss that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

And I even stated that I don't give a !@#$ about this year's voting.  I started the discussion for next year, or did you miss that?

Nah I didn't miss anything. This is for next year's post, that's very good, we can all discuss and see how we can create a (near) unbiased situation for polls, but what happened to you before Inq votes started to come in? Why now?

And how do you see all those people who say there should be new polls and the votes by Inq members are invalid or we rigged the voting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bot said:

Nah I didn't miss anything. This is for next year's post, that's very good, we can all discuss and see how we can create a (near) unbiased situation for polls, but what happened to you before Inq votes started to come in? Why now?

I'm 35 years old working a HR job for a construction contract company that requires a lot of work before the holiday's hit.  While yes I do spend a lot of time on the forums, I don't pay attention to every single sub folder on the forum.  Let alone enough to catch up with the drama before I think "Oh hey, we should work on a solution to these problems if the community really wants it.  Let's see if we can have any discussion."

Apparently not.

 

As for your latter question, I've already stated that it's silly with their suggestions to make it invalid and/or restart them.

Also, @Bot, did you miss this little statement in the OP before you started pinning bias on me?

"(Otherwise stop complaining when alliances and their leaders are pushing their members to contribute in a vote, or push yours to do the same.  A lot of you are members of spheres/blocs that can very easily organize mass voting.   It honestly doesn't take much.)"

Edited by Buorhann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'm 35 years old working a HR job for a construction contract company that requires a lot of work before the holiday's hit.  While yes I do spend a lot of time on the forums, I don't pay attention to every single sub folder on the forum.  Let alone enough to catch up with the drama before I think "Oh hey, we should work on a solution to these problems if the community really wants it.  Let's see if we can have any discussion."

Apparently not.

 

As for your latter question, I've already stated that it's silly with their suggestions to make it invalid and/or restart them.

Also, @Bot, did you miss this little statement in the OP before you started pinning bias on me?

"(Otherwise stop complaining when alliances and their leaders are pushing their members to contribute in a vote, or push yours to do the same.  A lot of you are members of spheres/blocs that can very easily organize mass voting.   It honestly doesn't take much.)"

lmao this is laughable. You were in the nomination thread when the nominations were going on and we are talking about the yearly awards sub-folder here, not any other.

That little statement is fine, what I find as a problem is, the way you are bringing it up. You'd have remained calm if it was TKR getting a lot of votes, I mean this is not the first time we are having this poll, it happens 2-3 times in the past, it's not like this is the first time and you missed your criticism because of your work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy idea, rather than !@#$ing about who is or isn't biased, how about you all just address the merit (or lack of merit) of the proposal one way or the other.

Its a proposal for next year anyway, by next year I doubt EMC/IQ will be a thing lmfao.

I don't think it will work as I already said, but if someone has a better idea they might as well say so otherwise maybe just say "no this is a bad idea don't do it" and move on?

lmfao

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

Crazy idea, rather than !@#$ing about who is or isn't biased, how about you all just address the merit (or lack of merit) of the proposal one way or the other.

Its a proposal for next year anyway, by next year I doubt EMC/IQ will be a thing lmfao.

I don't think it will work as I already said, but if someone has a better idea they might as well say so otherwise maybe just say "no this is a bad idea don't do it" and move on?

lmfao

Why shouldn't we talk about who is or isn't biased? The way a lot of people are reacting is disgusting to me, so I'm giving my opinions on why people are biased, esp if people are going to talk about restarting the polls just because they are not winning in a few categories.

About the proposals, we certainly can implement something solid, but can't accept if it's going to come up in a biased manner from someone. (Didn't I just reply to your post with a few proposals?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I would've said the same thing regardless of who was spamming what votes.  Hell, I would've spammed the votes myself and still created the same thread.  You can still hold a discussion on finding solutions for future voting threads while still being a paranoid forum troll or a honest legit voter.  Doesn't matter, and it doesn't detract from the purpose of the thread.

The fact you and the others who are constantly pointing this out, while there has been no bias shown otherwise, shows just how paranoid and/or pessimistic you guys are.  You're merely reinforcing the view some people have on you guys that you keep bringing up.

Hell, some of you, who have complained about rig voting in the past had prime opportunities to contribute or start up a discussion yourself.  I literally had a good conversation going, no bias, no alliance calling, no insults - but we get this.

"OH YOU WONT DO IT IF TKR WAS WINNING BUT I HAVE NO PROOF OTHERWISE TO SHOW THIS"

That's basically you right now.

I mean, look at the suggestions I stated myself.  I literally stated that we have a rep from each alliance (YES THAT INCLUDES YOU GUYS) to form a council of sorts to weed through the nominations.

If I was bias with my approach, why would I suggest such a thing?  Get over it.  Yes, I don't like IQsphere and this shit is reinforcing it, but I can approach people with no bias to hold a legit discussion on something that is meant to be community friendly on a neutral level.  I even supported your sphere through this drama shit telling people they can mass vote themselves to counter it or just get over it.  It's silly.  But yet I'm still bias.  Ok.

You know what, you're right and I apologize for getting out of line overreacting out of emotion. Like said though, the solution I offer is to do away with vote and issue awards based on factual stats over the course of the year. This would also require removing some of the awards and changing the names of some. Alliance with most/least new members of year x, alliance with most/least score growth of year x, most active owf poster, etc.. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bot said:

Why shouldn't we talk about who is or isn't biased? The way a lot of people are reacting is disgusting to me, so I'm giving my opinions on why people are biased, esp if people are going to talk about restarting the polls just because they are not winning in a few categories.

About the proposals, we certainly can implement something solid, but can't accept if it's going to come up in a biased manner from someone. (Didn't I just reply to your post with a few proposals?)

I mean bias is inevitable in these kinds of votes, I think the point Bourhann was referring to is that last year sheepy kind of legitimized them so now they have a certain degree of impact its probably worth discussing a way to refine the awards system in general.

Also, bias has literally nothing to do with a proposal. Lets assume worst case scenario Bourhann is an evil biased hippo and hes only posting this because hes super salty he wasn't voted prettiest hippo of the year. What difference does that make to the actual proposal? Either its a good idea or its not, individual bias is ultimately irrelevant. Questioning his motivations is a waste of time then, since he'll just deny it and you'll go around in circles.

So basically you can either address what is good/bad about his proposal, provide a counter proposal, move on, or continue to accuse Bourhann of bias and get nowhere, I have no idea if you want to get anywhere or not but I figured i point it out anyway lmfao.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

I mean bias is inevitable in these kinds of votes, I think the point Bourhann was referring to is that last year sheepy kind of legitimized them so now they have a certain degree of impact its probably worth discussing a way to refine the awards system in general.

Also, bias has literally nothing to do with a proposal. Lets assume worst case scenario Bourhann is an evil biased hippo and hes only posting this because hes super salty he wasn't voted prettiest hippo of the year. What difference does that make to the actual proposal? Either its a good idea or its not, individual bias is ultimately irrelevant. Questioning his motivations is a waste of time then, since he'll just deny it and you'll go around in circles.

So basically you can either address what is good/bad about his proposal, provide a counter proposal, move on, or continue to accuse Bourhann of bias and get nowhere, I have no idea if you want to get anywhere or not but I figured i point it out anyway lmfao.

Proposals can be biased, since you didn't quote, I assumed in general while giving that reply. Take Micchan's proposal for example, or Zeebrus for example, those are clearly biased, if you are going to see some votes as valid and others not.

Bias is inevitable, I agree. As for Buorhann, we can certainly discuss though, what I find striking (as I mentioned earlier) is the way he is bringing it up by remaining silent so far, which is what I've pointed out and he refused to acknowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bot said:

Proposals can be biased, since you didn't quote, I assumed in general while giving that reply. Take Micchan's proposal for example, or Zeebrus for example, those are clearly biased, if you are going to see some votes as valid and others not.

Bias is inevitable, I agree. As for Buorhann, we can certainly discuss though, what I find striking (as I mentioned earlier) is the way he is bringing it up by remaining silent so far, which is what I've pointed out and he refused to acknowledge.

I think you missed my point, which is not that proposals can't be biased, its that ultimately the bias is irrelevant. Either the idea is a good one or a bad one. The motivation/intention of the person proposing the idea only says something about that persons character, it says nothing about the actual validity of the idea.

Bourhanns motivations for proposing the idea are not a strike against the idea but again Bourhanns character assuming you are correct. A criticism of the idea would be something like "this won't eliminate bias and good luck getting alliances to form a consensus on anything".

What you are doing is fighting assumed bias with opposing bias rather than just telling him why his idea is a bad one.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again to suggest that we should vote again because some people have voted "wrong" and people have missed out on their rightful award is arrogant and condescending to the voters. Who is the best ..... is subjective. If we make that awards based on objective/measurable outcomes like most members recruited or most cities built or again most damage dealt then the problem is eliminated. If we have a committee of delegates from each alliance you run into questions like why does a 10 person alliance have the same voting power as a 100 person alliance? Is the opinion of each 10 person alliance member 10 times more important?  I strongly feel that objective based awards is the best option.

Edited by Senatorius
Phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Senatorius said:

Again to suggest that we should vote again because some people have voted "wrong" and people have missed out on their rightful award is arrogant and condescending to the voters. Who is the best ..... is subjective. If we make that awards based on objective/measurable outcomes like most members recruited or most cities built or again most damage dealt then the problem is eliminated. If we have a committee of delegates from each alliance you run into questions like why does a 10 person alliance have the same voting power as a 100 person alliance? Is the opinion of each 10 person alliance 10 times more important?  I strongly feel that objective based awards is the best option.

While this is the easiest solution, it does kinda remove the community involvement element that makes these sorts of thing interesting. Personally I find the nomination period the most fun because you get to see individual perspectives of members of the community on most of the topics of the year.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bot said:

You'd have remained calm if it was TKR getting a lot of votes, I mean this is not the first time we are having this poll, it happens 2-3 times in the past, it's not like this is the first time and you missed your criticism because of your work

No, I wouldn't have, but you wouldn't know.  You're simply speculating it because of my opinion of you guys in the game.  I have shown nothing to you or said anything to you that proves your speculation even remotely correct.  Your argument is weak and you know it because the only thing you're falling back on is the timing of the thread (Even though I stated that this discussion would work towards next years).

I have, in the past, made fun of the voting myself while showing how easy it was to rig them.  So yes, I'm well aware of everything you're stating about it.

I get it though, you're more focused on being butt hurt that you cannot possibly contribute to the discussion beyond pointing out that some people have bias and therefore should be completely neglected out of the conversation, despite the fact that I literally had a very good constructive conversation started with someone whom I would normally be "biased against".

38 minutes ago, element85 said:

You know what, you're right and I apologize for getting out of line overreacting out of emotion. Like said though, the solution I offer is to do away with vote and issue awards based on factual stats over the course of the year. This would also require removing some of the awards and changing the names of some. Alliance with most/least new members of year x, alliance with most/least score growth of year x, most active owf poster, etc.. 

I really don't see a issue with this.  You're saying that we should base the rewards off of factual stats that we can pull, and eliminate the rest?  I would love to see some of the topics trimmed away or, at the very least, changed to be more definitive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.