Adventure Gamers - Forums

rtrooney - 10 March 2020 08:29 PM

I’m sure your “Vote” earlier suggesting that everything must remain the same as it always has been has been duly noted.

I thought you didn’t plan to participate in any future playthrough. Not to mention that it was your stubbornness that led to this whole dispute and the “procedures” voting. You could’ve easily led the Lighthouse playthrough; instead you’ve been acting as a victim while igniting this silly drama for months.

So, It is quite easy. Establish official rules and as in any organization in the world, entering in the voting process means you agree with the rules.

1. A game must have a leader to win. That leader could offer himself until voting process ends.

2. If voting process ends and most voted game has no leader, next most voted game wih a leader wins.

3. It is allowed to nominate and vote for a game without a leader since a leader can appear at the last moment.

4. If you don’t agree, make your own CPT.

SoccerDude - 11 March 2020 05:57 PM

The fact that Lighthouse won but we didn’t have a playthrough was completely unfair. Why vote in something if your vote counts to nothing. I am sure we could have managed a way to get a playthrough going without a leader.

I had a strong feeling that everyone was expecting rtrooney to lead the playthrough after all since he was the only one familiar enough with the game and didn’t mind leading the CPT during the past votings. I would’ve also gladly joined it in that case. But for some reason rtrooney proclaimed he wouldn’t participate in further playthroughs. What followed looked like this:

“I’m not leading or playing, but someone might and I’ll lend my notes to him/her… C’mon, lead the CPT… Time’s running out, we need a leader… Ok, why do we even need a leader?.. Who even said we need a leader?.. There’s nothing to discuss here, we don’t need a leader at all… Ok, we heard you, now let us continue with the no-leader discussion”.

He spent so much time arguing and complaining instead of simply leading a CPT and now attacks Mikekelly, an active participant of many other CPTs who also showed a good example of how a playthrough could be constructed with a simple intro and few instructions. And he is not even a native English speaker from what I know! How hard it could be - writing a few paragraphs about the game you know by heart? And now that there are two CPTs running simultaneously, even though Kentucky Route Zero lost, what else is there left to complain about? I don’t understand.

SoccerDude - 11 March 2020 05:47 PM

walas74 - 11 March 2020 11:15 AM

So, It is quite easy. Establish official rules and as in any organization in the world, entering in the voting process means you agree with the rules.

1. A game must have a leader to win. That leader could offer himself until voting process ends.

2. If voting process ends and most voted game has no leader, next most voted game wih a leader wins.

3. It is allowed to nominate and vote for a game without a leader since a leader can appear at the last moment.

4. If you don’t agree, make your own CPT.

Not cool to impose this as decree and then say if you don’t agree, go make your own thread. What about all of us (almost half the voters) who don’t care if there is a leader

Well, I thought the whole purpose of this thread was estabishing rules according to the votes, and as it is been said before, majority wins, so almost half is not majority but quite the opposite.

There can always be two CPT threads, one voting games with a leader, another one voting games no matter the leader.

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?
Game should have a leader to qualify - 8
Game should win with a simple majority - 4
Leader is preferable but not always necessary - 3
Leader is not necessary - 1

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?
With a leader - 12
Prefer with a leader but would participate without one - 1
Without a leader - 1
With or without; depends on quality of leadership - 1
Don’t know - 1

3.  What kind of games would do best without a leader?
None - 8
None for CP but community challenge or unofficial playthrough may not need one - 1
A linear one or those with distinct chapters, acts or episodes - 5
Any game; discussion is most important - 1
Don’t know - 1

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?
Anyone can nominate a game - 11
Person nominating game should be willing to lead if no one else can - 4
No opinion - 1

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?
Yes - 7
Yes or as soon as possible - 1
Within a couple of days of voting if leaderless game wins - 7
No opinion - 1

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?
Two weeks is enough - 7
Time should be one week - 3
Time should be shorter (no alterative given) - 1
Time should be three weeks - 2
Time should be flexible - 1
To save time, take votes for more than one playthrough at a time or agree to side play - 1
No opinion - 1

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not? 
Yes - 5
No, tie breaker should be shortened to:
—One day - 1
—Two days - 1
—Four to five days -  2
Play both tied games at same time - 1
Choose game first nominated - 1
Tie breaker should be limited to current round of PT voters - 1
No opinion - 3

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should voting begin fresh each time?
Nominations should begin fresh - 10
Nominations should begin fresh but list of previously nominated games could be posted as a reminder at the beginning of voting - 4
List could be brought forward if two or three games have already been voted on - 1
No opinion - 1

Summary

Thank you to all who answered these questions.  Some of the results have already been presented and discussed, so bear with me as I navigate through the myriad opinions presented and try to draw some conclusions from them.

Although 12 out of 16 participants prefer a CP with a leader,  the decision about whether or not a game needs a leader to qualify for a CP is split evenly 8 to 8.  This means that a leaderless game can be eligible for a CP if it wins.  As has been suggested by some who prefer a leader, people can choose not to vote for a game unless a leader appears or they may withdraw their vote before the end of voting. 

There were 9 people who didn’t think there were any games that would do best without a leader, but 5 suggested that linear games or those with chapters, acts or episodes could be leaderless.  One person suggested that leaderless games might be better as an unofficial playthrough or community challenge.

Eleven people feel that anyone can nominate a game, but four think the person nominating the game should be willing to lead it, especially if no one else volunteers.

Most people would like a leader to declare his/her intentions during the voting process or within a couple of days if a leaderless game wins.

Regarding the roles of a CP leader, several people made comments about it here and in another thread.  I think it would be relevant to mention them now.
Minimum role of a leader:  Set up thread, say go, and/or pace the CP.
Other options: Set up stopping points for discussion, post screenshots and/or discussion questions, and/or keep tabs on those playing to adjust alotted time, if necessary.  It seems that being a leader does not have to be terribly onerous at the minimun level but can expand as much as the leader desires.   

There were many differing opinions about how long a round of nominations and voting should take, but the middle ground of 2 weeks seems to be the best bet or at least a time period covering two weekends for those who can’t come online during the week.  That being said, the end of voting should be stated as early as possible so that no one misses the voting. 

The way a tie is resolved also has many differing points of view.  This was an area of argument many playthroughs ago, which is why I included it.  If we are to add a couple of days to call out for a leader, it’s my opinion that we could shorten the tie resolution from a week to 4 or 5 days.  This may need to be revisited as not all aspects of the question were answered by some participants.  We also need a way of dealing with a deadlock, which I didn’t include here.   

The majority feel that nominations should begin fresh each round, but a list of previously nominated games could be brought forward as a reference.  This would save having to scroll back through many pages of the previous round.

I think I’ve covered everything, but let me know if I’ve missed something.

Doom - 11 March 2020 06:40 PM

SoccerDude - 11 March 2020 05:57 PM

The fact that Lighthouse won but we didn’t have a playthrough was completely unfair. Why vote in something if your vote counts to nothing. I am sure we could have managed a way to get a playthrough going without a leader.

“I’m not leading or playing, but someone might and I’ll lend my notes to him/her… C’mon, lead the CPT… Time’s running out, we need a leader… Ok, why do we even need a leader?.. Who even said we need a leader?.. There’s nothing to discuss here, we don’t need a leader at all… Ok, we heard you, now let us continue with the no-leader discussion”.

He spent so much time arguing and complaining instead of simply leading a CPT

Truly think you should let this die. Your quoting snippets of material from different posts and pasting them together in an attempt to make a unified argument is, at minimum, disingenuous.

Here is the only quote that, I think, makes sense to readers trying to follow your logic.

rtrooney - 11 January 2020 07:05 PM

Doom - 10 January 2020 09:52 PM

With all due respect, by this time you could’ve written a nice guide for a Lighthouse CPU instead of complaining and defending the game, and we would’ve being playing it right now.

You might be correct except for two things. One, I never said I wouldn’t discuss the merits of the game. And, two, from the very beginning I said I would not lead the game. So whatever time I’ve spent discussing the game is not material as to whether that time would have been better spent leading the game.

Nice recap Lady K!

Thanks, RT!

Lady Kestrel - 11 March 2020 07:32 PM

Minimum role of a leader:  Set up thread, say go, and/or pace the CP.

Wow. Have we really spent months having a debate about whether this extremely demanding task is required?

rtrooney - 11 March 2020 07:42 PM

Truly think you should let this die. Your quoting snippets of material from different posts and pasting them together in an attempt to make a unified argument is, at minimum, disingenuous.

You’ve been acting like a teenage girl all this time, not like a grownup man, that’s all I meant to say, it doesn’t matter when you posted what. Too much drama about nothing. CPT was a very enjoyable topic with well-established rules, but now it’s all about quarreling and questioning each others choices, and you started it.

Donuts McGee - 11 March 2020 08:12 PM

Lady Kestrel - 11 March 2020 07:32 PM

Minimum role of a leader:  Set up thread, say go, and/or pace the CP.

Wow. Have we really spent months having a debate about whether this extremely demanding task is required?

Tsk tsk… we don’t have any leadership rules yet. I’m preparing the next voting round with important questions like: Can anybody become a leader? Name three skills any leader should have. Are the CP participants allowed to take a vote on who is going to be the leader? How many pics from the game is the leader allowed to post in his/her introduction? And a question of special interest to YOU: Who is in charge of the dungeon for people who voted for a particular game and never showed up in the CP?