Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Community Playthrough Procedures
Karlok’s count of the vote, and her conclusions, to me, are pretty much spot on. Unfortunately, the vote is so close that I can’t draw a definitive conclusion from it. Which was the point of the questionnaire. So what now?
One solution I can think of is to let the game with highest count win. If a person won’t play if there is no leader, than they should not vote on a game without one. That way, if a game without a leader wins, all people who voted for it would not care either way and there wouldn’t be a problem. That in theory should satisfy both sides.
One solution I can think of is to let the game with highest count win. If a person won’t play if there is no leader, than they should not vote on a game without one. That way, if a game without a leader wins, all people who voted for it would not care either way and there wouldn’t be a problem. That in theory should satisfy both sides.
This is one of the conclusions I came to after seeing the responses to the questions. Thank you for putting it so succinctly, SoccerDude.
“Rainy days should be spent at home with a cup of tea and a good book.” -Bill Watterson
what a stupid argument
Giom: It’s better but not necessary = NO ? what is more value here Better to have a leader V Not necessary to have a leader?enough!!, i had enough of ou karlok, leave me be, please.
Advie, as the one quoted here, I can tell you without a doubt that Karlok’s and Soccerdude’s interpretation is the correct one here..
I value what a leader does, but if there’s no leader, I’ll still be happy to play. I know you were trying to be helpful, but I do think you took a too black and white interpretation of what people were saying.
And I fully agree with Soccerdude’s conclusion. Honestly, it’s kind of silly to end up bickering this much over something that should be there for fun.
Thanks to SoccerDude and giom for your involvement to explain why i have gotten it wrong!
Add: but you know what you guys, i just have realized how fun and boring all those arguments are…
the score i had for Q Num#1 was Yes:10 & No:3... and with the great help from Kalork, which i don’t know, how would have We survived without, it was still the same result! after even by her score: Yes:8 & No:6
Karlok’s count of the vote, and her conclusions, to me, are pretty much spot on. Unfortunately, the vote is so close that I can’t draw a definitive conclusion from it. Which was the point of the questionnaire. So what now?
One solution I can think of is to let the game with highest count win. If a person won’t play if there is no leader, than they should not vote on a game without one. That way, if a game without a leader wins, all people who voted for it would not care either way and there wouldn’t be a problem. That in theory should satisfy both sides.
So the final vote, by Karlok’s tally, is 8 Yes, 6 no and 2 undecided. Percentages, rounded, are 50, 38 and 12. One or two votes either way could change things.
I like SoccerDude’s solution, and am interested to see how things play out in the next vote.
Also interested to see what the voting instructions will be.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
Thanks to SoccerDude and giom for your involvement to explain why i have gotten it wrong!
Add: but you know what you guys, i just have realized how fun and boring all those arguments are…
the score i had for Q Num#1 was Yes:10 & No:3... and with the great help from Kalork, which i don’t know, how would have We survived without, it was still the same result! after even by her score: Yes:8 & No:6
10-3 or 8-6. What’s a few votes among friends.
Now let’s have a look at question number two: Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader? At least 12 people prefer a leader. One person had reservations. One person preferred a CP without a leader. That’s 12/13 - 1. Not counting one idiot who didn’t understand the question and answered NO. The same shit-for-brains who came up with a score of 5-6 for this question.
You wanted Kalork to leave you alone, but of course you’re unable to leave me alone. So you pay the price.
See you around, wolf. Nerissa
Karlok,
There is no need to make derogatory comments towards other forum members, particularly using statements such as shit-for-brains. This is unacceptable which you are perfectly aware of, given as this isn’t the first time you are being made aware of adapting your tone of voice.
Unless you are below adolescent age, there is no excuse for such statements!
Karlok,
There is no need to make derogatory comments towards other forum members, particularly using statements such as shit-for-brains. This is unacceptable which you are perfectly aware of, given as this isn’t the first time you are being made aware of adapting your tone of voice.
Unless you are below adolescent age, there is no excuse for such statements!
Fine with me. From now on I’ll call Advie sick and disgusting. You obviously don’t find that derogatory.
See you around, wolf. Nerissa
Karlok,
There is no need to make derogatory comments towards other forum members, particularly using statements such as shit-for-brains. This is unacceptable which you are perfectly aware of, given as this isn’t the first time you are being made aware of adapting your tone of voice.
Unless you are below adolescent age, there is no excuse for such statements!
Fine with me. From now on I’ll call Advie sick and disgusting. You obviously don’t find that derogatory.
Advie is one of the people I’ve come across in my whole adventure game world on this site that I could accuse of being a lot of things but despite all of our disagreements I could NEVER describe him as being sick and disgusting - that’s just not him! 
And YES, I find that description derogatory.
Not having a leader should not disqualify a winning game from a CP
. this was Rtrooney answer which doesn’t answer the question either way.
OMG. Sitting on my hands…
and go count, at least i did it to help but your sick motives are all around you and its disgusting.
So here are the results according to Karlok with her sick and disgusting motives
Actually it was Advie that called Karlok the insulting phrase. I think her point is that if the phrase is offensive, why wasn’t it offensive when it was first used against her?
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
the question what remains and will always be, why did not you go make the score for the whole test so st least we can compare results, and get maybe something outta it, but go picking on what looked up messed enough for you to start picking on me,
here is my work and all votes of the total question that I made to come up with results i posted yesterday, that only i was with one motive and it wasn’t to piss on on somebody. a mainly to was for Rtooney inquiry about the use of these votings, and the possibility of getting anything out of it,
I also wonder whether anyone is going to compile this data. And how, and to what end it will be published. And I wonder what conclusions are drawn, if any, will have an impact on future AGCPT votes
———-
so i have somehow challenged myself to interpret all answer and post the result..
i couldnt attach the txt file for some reson so i pasted the while chart
chrissie: 1.A - 2.A -3.B -4.B - 5.CRABAPPLE - 6.A - 7.A - 8.B
Mikekelly:1.a - 2.A - 3.B - 4.B - 5.A - 6.A - 7.A - 8.B
giom:1.A - 2.A - 3.B - 4.B - 5.CRABAPPLE - 6.A - 7.A - 8.B
Simon_ASA: 1.A - 2.A - 3.A - 4.B - 5.A - 6.B - 7.B - 8.B
Advie: 1.A - 2.A - 3.B - 4.B - 5.CRABAPPLE - 6.A - 7.A - 8.B
Doom: 1.A - 2.A - 3.A - 4.B - 5.A - 6.B - 7.b - 8.B
crabapple: 1.A - 2.A - 3.B - 4.B - 5.CRABAPPLE - 6.B - 7.B - 8.B
Luhr: 1.B - 2.B - 3.B - 4,5,6,7,8.:0
rtrooney: 1:0 - 2.A - 3.B - 4.A - 5.A - 6.B - 7.B - 8.B
Intense Degree: 1.A - 2.A - 3.B - 4.A - 5.CRABAPPLE - 6.A - 7.0 - 8.B
SoccerDude: 1.b - 2.A - 3.A - 4.B - 5.CRABAPPLE - 6.B - 7.A - 8.B
Diego: 1.A - 2.B - 3.B - 4.A - 5.A - 6.A - 7.A - 8.B
walas74: 1.A - 2.A - 3B - 4.B - 5.A - 6.A - 7.A - 8.B
Pegbiter: 1.A - 2.A - 3.B - 4.B - 5.A - 6.A - 7:0 - 8.B
Celebreon: 1.A - 2:0 - 3:0 - 4.A - 5.A - -6:a - 7:0 - 8.B
Lucien21: 1.B - 2.A - 3.A - 4.B - 5.A - 6:0 - 7.B - 8.A
p.s: i know i missed up counting and interpretations, i already said that too.
Without derailing this thread more than it already has been, let’s be clear that saying blatantly hurtful words to each other isn’t acceptable from anyone. There’s simply no justification to initiate hostility OR escalate it even if someone else started it.
If you think someone has crossed the line of acceptable behaviour, then by all means report the post and let the mods deal with it.
Now, as for the topic at hand, seems that some rather sensible ideas have been put forth that will hopefully help smooth out the process. I sincerely hope this is the last time we see that voting thread devolve into petty insults and pointless bickering. For a group that seems to want to play together, there doesn’t seem to be much effort made toward actually getting along.
I know lady Kestrel you’re in the process of compiling some ‘rules’ so just wanted to add a couple of things:
One solution I can think of is to let the game with highest count win. If a person won’t play if there is no leader, than they should not vote on a game without one. That way, if a game without a leader wins, all people who voted for it would not care either way and there wouldn’t be a problem. That in theory should satisfy both sides.
While I will go along with the game with the highest count winning I disagree with not being able to nominate or vote for a game without a leader, if that’s what you prefer, in the hope that someone may along the way offer to lead - there’s games I may like to play which are new to me so would like to nominate & vote for them.
The most important thing though is that I would also like to have the option to withdraw my vote in the event that no-one steps-up to lead if it looks like the game’s going to win & when should I withdraw my vote?
The other thing I would like to be addressed is how a deadlock in the tie would be resolved?
While I will go along with the game with the highest count winning I disagree with not being able to nominate or vote for a game without a leader, if that’s what you prefer, in the hope that someone may along the way offer to lead - there’s games I may like to play which are new to me so would like to nominate & vote for them.
The most important thing though is that I would also like to have the option to withdraw my vote in the event that no-one steps-up to lead if it looks like the game’s going to win & when should I withdraw my vote?
In the past, any game could be nominated by anyone for a CPT and didn’t have to have a leader. You could withdraw your vote anytime until the votes were counted.
However to win, a leader had to be found for the game before the vote was counted.
I would like to see both these rules continue.
I enjoy playing adventure games on my Alienware M17 r4 and my Nintendo Switch OLED.
In the past, any game could be nominated by anyone for a CPT and didn’t have to have a leader. You could withdraw your vote anytime until the votes were counted.
However to win, a leader had to be found for the game before the vote was counted.
I would like to see both these rules continue.
I’m sure your “Vote” earlier suggesting that everything must remain the same as it always has been has been duly noted.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
