Jump to content
Buorhann

Ok, real talk. Player/Alliance votes

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

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.

 

I can't argue with that or think of a way to keep that element without having a form of community bias also involved in the outcomes of the awards. If we have a system of polling peoples opinions on matters we can not reasonably object when the poll shows an opinion contrary to what is our own opinion. I can see how people can disagree with a result but can not understand how we feel that the result fails to reflect the views of the people who voluntarily choose to vote that way. 

And for the whole Bourhann bias thing I to am biased (we all are) but his proposal that we try to find a method of improving our voting system for the 2018 elections is worthwhile. I don't know how to improve it as limiting voting will not improve it in my opinion but the discussion is worth having

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole bias thing are people perceiving it as of now, when I mentioned the discussion for solutions would be for later.  Even the initial suggestions I had while talking to Edward was more inclusive than exclusive by having a rep from each alliance in the Top 15 (Or Top 20 if people prefer, it's a discussion afterall).  It's just an annoying thing that some want to clutter this thread with due to not having anything else to say.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

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.

How come bias is irrelevant, esp if it's about opinion polls? It's going to decide the outcome, since it's based on everyone's perspective and opinions. It is relevant and if we are going to have some rational discussion on the topic, we need to first act neutral, not biased, that's the first requirement.

How do you define good one or a bad one in this scenario? If it's biased against you, you'd definitely call it as a bad one.

Kindly check below for a reply for your second para.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

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".

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.

There are just two (or three of you consider a tie) outcomes that can come out of this poll. One is, TKR getting the usual awards or the other thing is, Inq getting our members to vote. This is my point, try to understand it, till you saw the Inq votes, you didn't say anything, you were posting in the sub-folder of PnW awards, so what were you thinking so far? Were you thinking that, just like last year TKR members will vote for TKR and everyone will remain calm and TKR will get all awards?

In addition to the above, this is not the first time such a poll is happening, we all knew what happened in previous polls, so it's not really a secret how the poll works, yet you didn't mention a word till you saw the outcome.

Oh don't mistake me, I can very well contribute if the discussion is really civil and rational (I haven't seen such discussions so far on forums involving Inq by a EMC fellow, esp from you, thats another case), but I'll point it out when someone is going to put up some statements full of bias against our alliance, I don't see anything wrong in it.

We can have rewards based on actual stats, for sure. I can help out my best if someone is going to collect huge sets of data and I'll be open for a discussion if that happens in a decent environment.

Edited by Bot
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy hell dude.  There is something legit wrong with you.  I'm not going to keep rehashing stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to this thread's purpose.

3 minutes ago, Bot said:

We can have rewards based on actual stats, for sure. I can help out my best if someone is going to collect huge sets of data and I'll be open for a discussion if that happens in a decent environment.

Cool.  We'll keep it in mind then, but until we get to that point, as a community we have to reach a compromise on how to approach it and what criteria would make us all happy or content with.

Personally, I'd like to hear more ideas from others as there's only a few here.

Share this post


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

Holy hell dude.  There is something legit wrong with you.  I'm not going to keep rehashing stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to this thread's purpose.

This is how you usually respond, so I'll leave at this stage.

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Cool.  We'll keep it in mind then, but until we get to that point, as a community we have to reach a compromise on how to approach it and what criteria would make us all happy or content with.

Personally, I'd like to hear more ideas from others as there's only a few here.

Great

Share this post


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

How come bias is irrelevant, esp if it's about opinion polls? It's going to decide the outcome, since it's based on everyone's perspective and opinions. It is relevant and if we are going to have some rational discussion on the topic, we need to first act neutral, not biased, that's the first requirement.

Kindly check below for a reply for your second para.

Okay so clearly yet again you've missed the point of what I was saying for the final time I'll try to illuminate it for you.

If your goal is literally just to smear Bourhanns character than fine w/e carry on. 

If your goal is to object to the proposal, then actually address the proposal and its flaws not the perceived motivation behind them (or atleast do both).

If your goal is to actually constructively propose ideas and arguments for improving the voting system, then object to the proposal and counter with your own.

Arguing about bias doesn't serve to further the argument, you'll just be arguing about it over and over and nothing constructive will come about it.

Not sure how you could have so completely misunderstood my posts lmfao. I was pretty clear.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Okay so clearly yet again you've missed the point of what I was saying for the final time I'll try to illuminate it for you.

If your goal is literally just to smear Bourhanns character than fine w/e carry on. 

If your goal is to object to the proposal, then actually address the proposal and its flaws not the perceived motivation behind them (or atleast do both).

If your goal is to actually constructively propose ideas and arguments for improving the voting system, then object to the proposal and counter with your own.

Arguing about bias doesn't serve to further the argument, you'll just be arguing about it over and over and nothing constructive will come about it.

Not sure how you could have so completely misunderstood my posts lmfao. I was pretty clear.

Why shouldn't I address the motivations behind it? (I'll do both, yeah, but not without pointing out this one) I mean, if a group of people are going to make ads boasting how honorable they are from an opinion polls in the previous year and they are butt hurt this year and say things that "some votes shouldn't be considered", thats what I was talking about. regarding the actual proposal, I'll be up for it, as I've said before. Regarding Buorhann, I was questioning the timing of his posts, about how he never reacted to old polls or how he didn't react to this poll before Inq votes started to come in, but yeah we are past this stage now, no point in arguing about it if you are not going to address it directly.

I didn't misunderstand your post, you said in your previous post that bias is irrelevant and I disagreed. I mean, TKR was reacting differently to the polls last year than now, some people are even going to an extend of saying absurd things, there is nothing wrong in bringing it up.

Edited by Bot
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bourhann's defence I believe that the suggestions were for the 2018 awards and not this one. If this is correct then he is attempting to make sure the timing does not have an impact on the outcome. I also think that attributing Bourhann's desire to change the system as self serving is equivalent to some EMC's (and others) members attributing IQs success in awards as an inability to understand the issue. Attributing values or opinions to others is usually speculation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Why shouldn't I address the motivations behind it? (I'll do both, yeah, but not without pointing out this one) I mean, if a group of people are going to make ads boasting how honorable they are from an opinion polls in the previous year and they are butt hurt this year and say things that "some votes shouldn't be considered", thats what I was talking about. regarding the actual proposal, I'll be up for it, as I've said before. Regarding Buorhann, I was questioning the timing of his posts, about how he never reacted to old polls or how he didn't react to this poll before Inq votes started to come in, but yeah we are past this stage now, no point in arguing about it if you are not going to address it directly.

All the other people !@#$ing (who I disagree with just to be clear) are not Bourhann. Normally people respond to what a person says not what other people say.

You questioned his motives, he said he wasn't biased, you said he was, he said he wasn't. He addressed your response directly and then you both argued over whether he was lying which is a completely redundant argument. I suggested you both move on and just discuss the proposal.

22 minutes ago, Bot said:

 

I didn't misunderstand your post, you said in your previous post that bias is irrelevant and I disagreed. I mean, TKR was reacting differently to the polls last year than now, some people are even going to an extend of saying absurd things, there is nothing wrong in bringing it up.

I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal not in general. You really aren't great at context are you. Let me quote myself to save time.

2 hours ago, Sketchy said:

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 you can keep harping on about how biased Bourhann is, or you can provide constructive arguments about the actual topic and not Bourhann. If you don't pick up what I'm putting down this time I'll add you to my ever growing list of "Don't talk to this person unless you feel like tormenting the intellectually challenged for amusement".

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

All the other people !@#$ing (who I disagree with just to be clear) are not Bourhann. Normally people respond to what a person says not what other people say.

You questioned his motives, he said he wasn't biased, you said he was, he said he wasn't. He addressed your response directly and then you both argued over whether he was lying which is a completely redundant argument. I suggested you both move on and just discuss the proposal.

Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal not in general. You really aren't great at context are you. Let me quote myself to save time.

 

So you can keep harping on about how biased Bourhann is, or you can provide constructive arguments about the actual topic and not Bourhann. If you don't pick up what I'm putting down this time I'll add you to my ever growing list of "Don't talk to this person unless you feel like tormenting the intellectually challenged for amusement".

So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.

Share this post


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

Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.

So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.

The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.

So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.

We literally just had a discussion about it and now suddenly it moved on? Spinning what narrative? I'm literally trying to get the topic onto a more constructive path so it has some actual positive results if at all possible.

As for your second post, no it wouldn't be okay because that would be a bad idea, which is literally my entire point, bias is irrelevant  to an idea because something is either a good idea or a bad idea, WHY a person proposes an idea has no bearing on whether or not that idea is a good proposal or not. This point seems continuously fly right over your head. You seem to have issues with basic comprehension.

Anyway I'll cut my losses and just ignore you in the hopes other people who understand context and have basic comprehension skills and actual proposals fill up the gaps.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it

Oh come on, I said I was questioning his timing of this post and why he didn't say anything on previous occasions.

 

4 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

We literally just had a discussion about it and now suddenly it moved on? Spinning what narrative? I'm literally trying to get the topic onto a more constructive path so it has some actual positive results if at all possible.

Can you just check the old posts before posting new ones?

5 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Anyway I'll cut my losses and just ignore you in the hopes other people who understand context and have basic comprehension skills and actual proposals fill up the gaps.

Fine, good day !

Share this post


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

The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it

ah just to clear this one up, I was just pointing out Buorhann's timing. That text, I was replying to the part "I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal", I hope that clears up @Senatorius. May be I shouldn've quoted more properly to make the point clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody knows you were pointing out Buorhanns timing, you have made it abundantly clear you disagree with him and think he is biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mind me boys, I'm just here to get my daily intake of salt. Keep scrolling.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, element85 said:

I'm assuming when she says "random player who knows nothing" she's referring to me but I will have her know I probably know way more than her, my forum account has been registered since December 10, 2015 nearly 2 weeks after I first started playing P&W. She probably just looked at my number of posts and said "OH, HE'S A RANDOM NOOB THAT JUST STARTED." 

1. Forum awards should be voted only by users who go to the forum

2. Some awards should be voted only by players who are in game enough to know what happened during the year

*element walks in*

"SHE'S TALKING ABOUT ME!!!!1111!!!"

And he's saying this from THE FORUM, with an OLD ACCOUNT 256610196774e7f363320c1e9a487afda88c14cc.gif

*Micchan add a new suggestion*

3. Players who manifest high levels of stupidity should not be allowed to vote

10 hours ago, Senatorius said:

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). 

6LlqCea.jpg

A young nation wasn't here enough to know what happened, a young nation can vote the coolest flag, but can't tell you wich alliance was the most immoral, because he didn't played the game

Sure there are players here from the start who can't give a motivation, this is why the abstain option exist, and I'm sure that counting only the votes with motivation will double the people who abstain making the poll even more accurate

10 hours ago, element85 said:

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?

Do you think I suggested to only count votes with motivation if I'm not able to do that? And if there is any category where I don't think I can motivate, there is always the option to abstain

I want to open a thread where we can share our motivations, but not now, there are still some categories that have not been open to vote

10 hours ago, justakittywithabox said:

If it's such an issue, why is it just being brought up now?

Because Buorhann made a thread to talk about this

9 hours ago, Senatorius said:

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.)

I think we should use the objective stats for the nominations, for example if you get the first 5 alliances for cities made during the year they are likely to be all potential winner of the best alliance growth and therefore you can't complain for the result

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stupid" being defined as "people who do not participate in *your* game in the way in which you would prefer them to" is what makes this appear to be self serving and silly. We should be encouraging the broadest participation possible. If the democratic process is truly sacrosanct, surely the higher the sample of the total number of possible voters will yield us the most accurate results?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Micchan said:

 

3. Players who manifest high levels of stupidity should not be allowed to vote

6LlqCea.jpg

A young nation wasn't here enough to know what happened, a young nation can vote the coolest flag, but can't tell you wich alliance was the most immoral, because he didn't played the game

I think we should use the objective stats for the nominations, for example if you get the first 5 alliances for cities made during the year they are likely to be all potential winner of the best alliance growth and therefore you can't complain for the result

A nation of any age can not tell you who is the most immoral alliance merely give his or her opinion from what he or her has seen/heard/read etc, not to mention that the nation age restriction still doesn't force anyone to be informed about a vote. 

Using a objective system to produce nominations and categories will still ultimately rely on opinions and still can't answer who is the most immoral alliance. People will still likely vote for what suits them the most politically. I think both sides admit that they do that.

Also that first quote was a response to your position that it is ok to disenfranchise players because it was equivalent or at least similar to preventing minors from voting. I pointed out that the matters are different due to the factor of brain development.

Edited by Senatorius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Micchan said:

A young nation wasn't here enough to know what happened, a young nation can vote the coolest flag, but can't tell you wich alliance was the most immoral, because he didn't played the game

 

Thats a lot of BS. You're discouraging new nations from actively taking part and is counter-productive to the community as a whole. Moreover, just because I don't post here does not mean I don't know whats going on. I've seen folks pick up the intricacies of this game within 15 days better than some old farts around. So your proposal of limiting is essentially discouraging new folks and built from elitist point of view of what you consider standards which are not broad, or harmonises standards for every nation, member, new or old for this community. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Thats a lot of BS. You're discouraging new nations from actively taking part and is counter-productive to the community as a whole. Moreover, just because I don't post here does not mean I don't know whats going on. I've seen folks pick up the intricacies of this game within 15 days better than some old farts around. So your proposal of limiting is essentially discouraging new folks and built from elitist point of view of what you consider standards which are not broad, or harmonises standards for every nation, member, new or old for this community. 

I agree with that.
But was this trolling rly necessary? NPO would probably win few categories without it. Why trolling with best new addition to community, Seeker and GOTG?
Are you trying to make memes out of Seeker and GOTG or what?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

1. Forum awards should be voted only by users who go to the forum

2. Some awards should be voted only by players who are in game enough to know what happened during the year

*element walks in*

"SHE'S TALKING ABOUT ME!!!!1111!!!"

And he's saying this from THE FORUM, with an OLD ACCOUNT 256610196774e7f363320c1e9a487afda88c14cc.gif

*Micchan add a new suggestion*

3. Players who manifest high levels of stupidity should not be allowed to vote

6LlqCea.jpg

A young nation wasn't here enough to know what happened, a young nation can vote the coolest flag, but can't tell you wich alliance was the most immoral, because he didn't played the game

Sure there are players here from the start who can't give a motivation, this is why the abstain option exist, and I'm sure that counting only the votes with motivation will double the people who abstain making the poll even more accurate

Do you think I suggested to only count votes with motivation if I'm not able to do that? And if there is any category where I don't think I can motivate, there is always the option to abstain

I want to open a thread where we can share our motivations, but not now, there are still some categories that have not been open to vote

Because Buorhann made a thread to talk about this

I think we should use the objective stats for the nominations, for example if you get the first 5 alliances for cities made during the year they are likely to be all potential winner of the best alliance growth and therefore you can't complain for the result

So you are going to ignore the rest. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest San Fortunado

tldr version; Buorhann !@#$es once more on the forums.

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.