Jump to content

Ok, real talk. Player/Alliance votes


Buorhann
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
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
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll lead the committee.

  • Upvote 2

"If we have no choice but to fight, than I'd rather fight for the good guys. I'd rather burn on the side of justice and morals, than greed and gluttony. Justice must be upheld and order must be given to a broken world. Rose must survive because without Rose than evil shall reign. Rose needs warriors, will you aid the empire?"

 

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

39fb0c29716d84588918693fef6b7c9c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While these awards may or may not need to be changed depending on whether you feel they should be a factual representation or the popularity contest that they currently are the timing and the author of this thread are rather suspect from the IQ point of view. Given that no one complained about them for the last couple of years when they went the Syndisphere/OO/TKR way and the fact that Buorhann and most of EMC have been overly critical of virtually everything posted by anyone on the IQ side during and since the end of the last war perhaps you can understand why we find this thread to be just a bit disingenuous.

 

That being said, if you want to go the factual road then you will have a great deal of work ahead of you.

You will need to:

1. Find enough people that can out aside their bias to actually agree on anything.

2. Define the categories. I doubt you can have a best econ category because no alliance is going to give out their bank information

3. Define the criteria for each category. How are you going to define best military? If it's most infra destroyed you might as well just give it to Arrgh every year because they raid every single day.

4. Define how the nominations are going to be handled.

5. Define how people are going to be allowed to vote. Personally I think trying to limit who can vote or making the votes public will be a non starter and doom you to failure before you even start.

 

Have fun.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 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

I agree about the forum awards, but you cannot judge that based on a person's number of posts which is exactly what you've done regarding me. Just because people don't post here doesn't mean they don't regularly lurk. 

And you wanting to limit based on a nation's age is too open to being subjective by who ever is judging that. It's not even that hard to pick up the game and the politics of it to make an informed vote. The entire year history of the game is laid out right in front of you if you do a little bit of digging. And as with all human input, it will always always always be influenced by the individual person's personal opinion which is almost always formed based on where they've been and what they've been exposed to. And so to say voting should be limited because a certain player doesn't know as much, then I'm quite sure that 95% of the people here are not qualified to vote even if they've been here for years, because unless you've been in every single alliance then you don't know.

Let me give you a small example. Harry grows up in a town where everyone in the town is a jerk. Meanwhile, Joe grows up in a town where everyone in the town is really nice. George grows up in a town where it's mixed. Bob grows up in a town where everyone is a thief. Charlie grows up in a town where it's safe to leave your door unlocked at night. What do you think the outcome of that is going to be? Harry will obviously form an opinion that everyone is a jerk and that people suck. Joe is going to form the opinion that people are awesome and cool. George will form the opinion that there will be a bad apple in every crowd but that there are good people. Bob will have an opinion to trust no one. Charlie will form the opinion that everyone is trustworthy.  So, tell me... Who's opinion is wrong? All of them I say. So then, votes are a bad idea because it's opinion based and all of our opinions are influenced based on where we've been and what we've been exposed to. And unless you've been exposed to the mechanics of every single alliance in the game, your logic says you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the vote. So, sorry folks. VOTING IS CANCELED because none of you are qualified.

Edited by element85
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

"I VM due to timezone differences" -Reuben Cheuk

 

timezoneVM.jpg.64e93c4270b92d26e0ac30572d9351eb.jpg 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Who Me said:

While these awards may or may not need to be changed depending on whether you feel they should be a factual representation or the popularity contest that they currently are the timing and the author of this thread are rather suspect from the IQ point of view. Given that no one complained about them for the last couple of years when they went the Syndisphere/OO/TKR way and the fact that Buorhann and most of EMC have been overly critical of virtually everything posted by anyone on the IQ side during and since the end of the last war perhaps you can understand why we find this thread to be just a bit disingenuous.

I am highly critical of IQ for various reasons, but none of them pertain to this years voting, previous years of voting, or anything voting related to begin with.

However, I would LOVE to hear further reasoning as to why, even if I'm suspect in your eyes, this would affect next year's voting.  What could I possibly do to sabotage your precious votes next year?  That is what you're suspect is, right?  I'm speculating, because I have no idea why the Hippo Boogieman makes you guys so scared to participate in harmless discussion on something that is trivial.  Well, some of you at least.

However, I want nothing done this year, because I've already stated before that I don't care about this year's voting and even support IQ's methods.  Next year.

In other words, even if I came out and was like "Alright, IQ broke the system (Which they didn't), we need to change it.  Let's talk about it" - what does it matter?  Clearly I had some good convos with the very people whom I would normally be "bias" or "plotting" against.  So obviously their words were heard, taken into consideration, and even debated with - with no politics (or war) involved.

So please educate me on how the !@#$ it matters.

"Because you didn't do it before" - So what?  Change takes time.  Might as well hold discussion and see if people even want it to begin with.  Or are you guys plotting to rig future votings too and this gets in the way somehow?  There's nothing concrete.  Hell, players may not want to change it around for future votes.  It's a harmless !@#$ing discussion and it surprises me by how many of you are so dramatic about it (Granted I'm not exactly innocent either).

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I am highly critical of IQ for various reasons, but none of them pertain to this years voting, previous years of voting, or anything voting related to begin with.

However, I would LOVE to hear further reasoning as to why, even if I'm suspect in your eyes, this would affect next year's voting.  What could I possibly do to sabotage your precious votes next year?  That is what you're suspect is, right?  I'm speculating, because I have no idea why the Hippo Boogieman makes you guys so scared to participate in harmless discussion on something that is trivial.  Well, some of you at least.

However, I want nothing done this year, because I've already stated before that I don't care about this year's voting and even support IQ's methods.  Next year.

In other words, even if I came out and was like "Alright, IQ broke the system (Which they didn't), we need to change it.  Let's talk about it" - what does it matter?  Clearly I had some good convos with the very people whom I would normally be "bias" or "plotting" against.  So obviously their words were heard, taken into consideration, and even debated with - with no politics (or war) involved.

So please educate me on how the !@#$ it matters.

Sigh, I guess you are just that thick. Due to your past posting habits I doubt you will find many if any people on the IQ side that believes you can be unbiased or impartial in the future.

Does that clear it up for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Who Me said:

Sigh, I guess you are just that thick. Due to your past posting habits I doubt you will find many if any people on the IQ side that believes you can be unbiased or impartial in the future.

Does that clear it up for you?

How the !@#$ does that matter with discussing on possibly changing things?  I even agreed with a lot of you.

 

And I'm the "thick" one?  Well, I am beautiful being thicc.

a05jnYv_700b.jpg

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kastor said:

I'll lead the committee.

I'm perfectly ok with this.  I'd like to see a player driven committee.

My main thing is I'd like to see a criteria set for the topics, so people know exactly how and why they're nominating people/alliances/events.  I'd also love to see half the topics eliminated.  It's too cluttered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'm perfectly ok with this.  I'd like to see a player driven committee.

My main thing is I'd like to see a criteria set for the topics, so people know exactly how and why they're nominating people/alliances/events.  I'd also love to see half the topics eliminated.  It's too cluttered.

 

 

 

Instead of all this back and forth...I have taken it upon myself to provide a solution. I will even allow you people here to pick the eight person committee. The Award Show will be held on a voice chat channel on discord (recorded as well) and their will be gifts to all the winners.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2017 at 8:24 PM, Sketchy said:

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

LMAO i said that the politics are likely to change on that radio show, you and many others kept up the "nope, its permanent enjoy" routine for quite a while, glad you seem to have changed your mind... or backtracked, either way. Believing reality is static is ridiculous kek.

11 hours ago, Who Me said:

1. Find enough people that can out aside their bias to actually agree on anything.

So what your telling us is we need to find a neutral party...Kastor, we need you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Epi said:

LMAO i said that the politics are likely to change on that radio show, you and many others kept up the "nope, its permanent enjoy" routine for quite a while, glad you seem to have changed your mind... or backtracked, either way. Believing reality is static is ridiculous kek.

I mean, you are completely butchering the context lmfao. EMC/IQ =/= politics. I didn't say nothing would ever change, small things change all the time, its just the games politics remain mostly the same and are cyclical in nature, and all the grudges and beefs held by various players stay the same.

The current dynamic between IQ and EMC mirrors the dynamic that existed between t$-oo and paracov down to the narratives and rhetoric.

Here lemme make a nice pic for you

0iLhueR.png

Some things can delay the cycle but it'll always go back to that lmfao.

These days it just takes twice as long to get through the cycle apparently lmfao.

  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, i can accept that i guess or at least take your word for it, till i see something to disprove it. Thanks for the education in sphere politics and change.

Though i guess the hidden conclusion to that graph is that

"Dynamic is a fairy tail" and or shit-posting exercise,  xD

jks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I mean, you are completely butchering the context lmfao. EMC/IQ =/= politics. I didn't say nothing would ever change, small things change all the time, its just the games politics remain mostly the same and are cyclical in nature, and all the grudges and beefs held by various players stay the same.

The current dynamic between IQ and EMC mirrors the dynamic that existed between t$-oo and paracov down to the narratives and rhetoric.

Here lemme make a nice pic for you

0iLhueR.png

Some things can delay the cycle but it'll always go back to that lmfao.

These days it just takes twice as long to get through the cycle apparently lmfao.

That's the way it should be. What matters is the fact that it will get stuck on the hegemoney side, and then die completely, unless players make the effort to keep going. And effort is hard, if not entirely impossible should the game mechanics not allow the option to resist the hegemoney or split the hegemoney into the smaller spheres that you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

That's the way it should be. What matters is the fact that it will get stuck on the hegemoney side, and then die completely, unless players make the effort to keep going. And effort is hard, if not entirely impossible should the game mechanics not allow the option to resist the hegemoney or split the hegemoney into the smaller spheres that you describe.

We aren't at the hegemoney stage yet but it seems everyone is eager to get there lmfao.

edit: smh why does hege mony autochange to hegemoney sheepy

Edited by Sketchy

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sketchy said:

We aren't at the hegemoney stage yet but it seems everyone is eager to get there lmfao.

edit: smh why does hege mony autochange to hegemoney sheepy

everyone always is eager to get to that stage, as long as they're the hegemons of course ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jax locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • 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.