Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
[Archived] Time for a new community playthrough?
It looks like most posters have no objections to the undemocratic rule. Fine. So if I vote for every single game in future, my vote makes no difference to the outcome but I do get a second vote in the case of a tie.
If you would like to take part in any kind of AGCP, then of course you have that right. That is democracy.
I’m not going to do that. I was making a point, Sefir.
I think most posters, although I haven’t gone through every message, actually dislike the democratic rule, if that is what you chose to call it. I think of it as an autocratic or dictatorial rule.
On one side is you, TimovieMan and Iz. SoccerDude just voted. I don’t think there was an opinion expressed one way or the other. But I will give you his vote.
Then there is me and Karlok (never thought I would see that pairing,) Diego Giom and a few others that seem to think this was done poorly. So, I don’t think most posters think what you think they think.
It may be true that the person that runs the show gets to make the rules, but nobody said everyone has to like it.
If I had voted, which I did not, but let’s assume I did vote for Myst III. It didn’t win. I should then throw up my hands and go home? If I still want to play in the playthrough I should get a vote for the two games that are tied.
There is one person out there that keeps saying that “if you would have voted for it in a tie break, you would have voted for it in the first place.” To that person, that is absolute BS.
I didn’t vote for it because it was not my first choice. Nor second, or third, or fourth. But, given a choice between not playing and voting for a game I didn’t think worthy and playing it, I chose to vote.
Oops! Can’t do that.
This system is disenfranchising your core constituency.
Sorry, other Tim. The casual system makes for happy campers. The current system here leaves angry people.
I would rather have happy campers. Something needs to happen to make the audience happy.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
The casual system makes for happy campers. The current system here leaves angry people.
I would rather have happy campers. Something needs to happen to make the audience happy.
Great post, rtrooney.
Yes, isn’t it weird that we agree for once.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Yes, isn’t it weird that we agree for once.
I like it. But let us not make it a habit. People who know our history might get a little freaked out. 
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
I think most posters, although I haven’t gone through every message, actually dislike the democratic rule, if that is what you chose to call it.
No, you are wrong here. Most people (as also noted by Karlok) are perfectly fine with it and find it a very logical rule (and that is another thing that makes it a democratic rule as well. 
).
There is one person out there that keeps saying that “if you would have voted for it in a tie break, you would have voted for it in the first place.” To that person, that is absolute BS.
That’s me. And Iznogood. And TimovieMan. And SoccerDude28. And I think the majority of people here who didn’t had a problem with this before and do not have now.
But, given a choice between not playing and voting for a game I didn’t think worthy and playing it, I chose to vote.
This is the definition of “you should have voted for it in the first place"though, is it not? When we vote, we try to find which game will get the greatest participation. It doesn’t matter that the game wasn’t within your top choices. If you were willing to participate in it (even uneasy), you should have voted for it from the beggining. And of course you can always join an AGCP even if you didn’t vote for it, but that also means that those other people who voted entirely by heart and were absolutely certain that will participate in the given tied games, will get to choose in case of a vote tie.
The casual system makes for happy campers. The current system here leaves angry people.
Mostly you and Karlok actually. Other people mentioned their opinion (mostly positive, in 1-2 occasions negatively, in 99% of the situations in a “it doesn’t really matter, let’s not add fuel to the fire” manner).
TimovieMan already mentioned that in the casual votings we will all -more or less- play any game given. The difference is huge.
I now have changed my mind on account that there were quite a few games proposed this time that I would have been happy to have participated in a play through but just chose a few. So in the event of different games ending up in a tie it would have been good to have had the chance to choose between those that I did not cast a vote for originally but would be willing to play.
So…now that the games you chose to vote lost you are against of the tie rule because you chose to vote strategically in the first place? But as you mentioned here:
I have no problem with the members who voted for both games deciding really - I just dearly wanted Touche to win & it’s not going to…..
you would have been ok if the games you voted would have been chosen???? I’m sorry, but this was a huge mistake of yours. You should have voted all games you were willing to play so that we should all had known which game will have the greatest participation. Strategical voting is against the interest of the community. Please tell me I misunderstood something….
And of course Touché might simply win the next round of voting!
If it becomes a more accessible game? I believe that its chances of winning the next voting are really big. And of course with great participation.
The casual system makes for happy campers. The current system here leaves angry people.
Mostly you and Karlok actually. Other people mentioned their opinion (mostly positive, in 1-2 occasions negatively, in 99% of the situations in a “it doesn’t really matter, let’s not add fuel to the fire” manner).
Is that a fact? Let’s do the math.
In favor of the current system: Sefir - Timovieman - Iznogood - Mikekelly - Noddy - Jabod - Soccerdude. Makes seven.
Against: Karlok - rtrooney - diego - mart - giom - chrissie (?? she proposed a new rule). Makes six unless chrissie objects.
The positions of crabapple, nelza and IntenseDegree are less clear. They may be on the fence or simply don’t care at all.
I believe that its chances of winning the next voting are really big.
Yeah? You told me to be patient, Plundered Hearts would surely win one day. You said the same thing about TimeQuest. You even asked Wilco to stop posting about TimeQuest in his Legend Entertainment thread because one day it just might feature in a CP! That’s stifling, Sefir. And where are those games now on the list?
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Can we just maybe agree with Chrissie’s solution and have it posted as the rules for any tie breakers from now on?
Since Karlok consistently refuses to explain what her solution actually is, apart from some ramblings about how it needs to be “based on arguments, reason and logic” and a metaphor about a husband and wife, the only two actual suggestions seem to be the current system and an outright second vote.
(And of course the compromise reached last time, that the one organising the vote, gets to set the rules within reason, but I don’t think that compromise is sufficient anymore, as no one seems to actually respect it 
)
And yes, I can live with a second vote between the games tied, where everybody can vote.
As far as I see it, it is in principle the exact same solution, with the only exception being that you need at least 5-7 days for a complete new vote, whereas the current solution only takes 1-2 days.
But I have some follow up questions as to the details:
1) Should everybody be allowed to vote in the tiebreaker, even if they didn’t participate in the original vote?
I believe they should, otherwise what is the whole point, if you just set some new restriction on who can vote and who can’t.
2) What if someone who voted for one of the games tied at the top, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should their original vote automatically be carried over to the tie-breaker, or should the voting period be extended until all the original votes of the tied games have cast their vote?
I believe their votes should automatically be carried over. They have already posted their interest in playing the game, and the voting period has already been extended for long enough.
3) What if some of the the other voters, NOT the ones who voted for the tie-breakers, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should the voting period then be extended?
I don’t believe it should. They have already been given two chances to vote for either of the games, and have not used either of them.
4) What if the tie-breaker ends in a new tie?
I have no solution for this myself.
And let me just add how destructive I think this whole discussion has been!
The only possible purpose it has served is to scare away potential new participant of the CPT. If I were a new member and saw this constant bickering here in the CPT vote, I would run away screaming and never return.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
The casual system makes for happy campers. The current system here leaves angry people.
Mostly you and Karlok actually. Other people mentioned their opinion (mostly positive, in 1-2 occasions negatively, in 99% of the situations in a “it doesn’t really matter, let’s not add fuel to the fire” manner).
Is that a fact? Let’s do the math.
In favor of the current system: Sefir - Timovieman - Iznogood - Mikekelly - Noddy - Jabod - Soccerdude. Makes seven.
Against: Karlok - rtrooney - diego - mart - giom - chrissie (?? she proposed a new rule). Makes six unless chrissie objects.
The positions of crabapple, nelza and IntenseDegree are less clear. They may be on the fence or simply don’t care at all.
From what I saw:
In favour: Sefir - Timovieman - Iznogood - Mikekelly - Noddy - Jabod - Soccerdude. Makes seven
Against: Karlok - rtrooney - mart - giom Makes four
diego never said that he had a problem with the current ruling (only that he wouldn’t had it applied if he had been the one to count the votes) and chrissie’s resoning is strange at best (unless I misunderstood something. See my reply to her above). For the other members you mentioned I agree. Also, the fact that many other voters do not object probably means they don’t have any problem with that.
You even asked Wilco to stop posting about TimeQuest in his Legend Entertainment thread because one day it just might feature in a CP! That’s stifling, Sefir.
And since I never asked, I merely made a suggestion back then, that is a plain and simple lie Karlok.
deleted
diego never said that he had a problem with the current ruling (only that he wouldn’t had it applied if he had been the one to count the votes)
Over here, Diego! Sefir doubts my word.
You even asked Wilco to stop posting about TimeQuest in his Legend Entertainment thread because one day it just might feature in a CP! That’s stifling, Sefir.
And since I never asked, I merely made a suggestion back then, that is a plain and simple lie Karlok.
You want to descend to the level of Wordfucking? Have it your way. SUGGEST is the truth, ASK is a lie. Fine with me.
This is what you said: I would suggest you better wait for this one and try some other titles. It was highly voted in the last AGCP voting and there is still high chance that a TimeQuest Community playthrough may exist in the not-so-distant future.
Suggestion or request, it’s still STIFLING, Sefir.
EDIT: If you want to play word games, Sefir, you should look up the meaning of the word “stifling”.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Suggestion or request, it’s still STIFLING, Sefir.
No. Anyone can suggest whatever he/she wants in a perfectly friendly tone, like I did it in the beforementioned post. A suggestion is not stiffling. The receiver of that suggetion (like wilco did in that situation), can do whatever he wants with it and all is fine. I never even posted anything else there. Stifling is like naming rules undemoctatic or causing an avalanche of comments in every given opportunity, ruining what was a perfectly good atmosphere before these posts.
Suggestion or request, it’s still STIFLING, Sefir.
No. Anyone can suggest whatever you want in a friendly tone, like I did it in the beforementioned post. A suggestion is not stiffling.
By definition, a suggestion is never stifling from the point of view of the person who is doing the suggesting and the stifling.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
diego never said that he had a problem with the current ruling (only that he wouldn’t had it applied if he had been the one to count the votes)
Over here, Diego!
My problem with the rule is that it stops any possibility of new people voting for a game. Now, I KNOW that anybody can join the playthrough without voting, but we DON’T KNOW if the game that won is the game that most people want to play! You see, if you’re giving some extra time for those who already voted for both games, why not giving an extra time for new people to vote, as well?!
Another, more selfish, personal reason against the rule is that I’m a very specific person, and what I want to play changes from day to day, hour to hour. It’s not impossible that I change my opinion on what I want to play, based on the sun position, atmospheric pressure, list of people who voted for the game…
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
Can we just maybe agree with Chrissie’s solution and have it posted as the rules for any tie breakers from now on?
Since Karlok consistently refuses to explain what her solution actually is, apart from some ramblings about how it needs to be “based on arguments, reason and logic” and a metaphor about a husband and wife, the only two actual suggestions seem to be the current system and an outright second vote.
Ok, to be honest I’m not 100% sure if Karlok would be happy with a second vote. That’s what I thought I understood from her posts though.
(And of course the compromise reached last time, that the one organising the vote, gets to set the rules within reason, but I don’t think that compromise is sufficient anymore, as no one seems to actually respect it
And yes, I can live with a second vote between the games tied, where everybody can vote.
As far as I see it, it is in principle the exact same solution, with the only exception being that you need at least 5-7 days for a complete new vote, whereas the current solution only takes 1-2 days.
I think in the case of a tie-breaker vote, we could make it last 2 days. Would seem fair and logical.
But I have some follow up questions as to the details:
1) Should everybody be allowed to vote in the tiebreaker, even if they didn’t participate in the original vote?
I believe they should, otherwise what is the whole point, if you just set some new restriction on who can vote and who can’t.
Yes I believe it makes sense. The more people who come and join CPTs, the better it is.
2) What if someone who voted for one of the games tied at the top, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should their original vote automatically be carried over to the tie-breaker, or should the voting period be extended until all the original votes of the tied games have cast their vote?
I believe their votes should automatically be carried over. They have already posted their interest in playing the game, and the voting period has already been extended for long enough.
That also makes sense, people who miss the 2 days window for the tie-breaker vote should not be penalized for it.
3) What if some of the the other voters, NOT the ones who voted for the tie-breakers, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should the voting period then be extended?
I don’t believe it should. They have already been given two chances to vote for either of the games, and have not used either of them.
I agree, it shouldn’t delay the start of the CPT. No point in extending past the two days tie-breaker window.
4) What if the tie-breaker ends in a new tie?
I have no solution for this myself.
Yes, we need to have a solution for that. If it’s decided now, it’ll lead to less bickering in the future in case it happens (and over the course of enough votes it’ll happen). I’m not sure what is better. I’d loath to extend the vote yet another time. Maybe have the voter who lead the most CPTs up until now be the tie-breaking vote in that situation. It makes sense to reward someone who did that much work.
Whatever the solution, it needs to be decided in advance.
And let me just add how destructive I think this whole discussion has been!
The only possible purpose it has served is to scare away potential new participant of the CPT. If I were a new member and saw this constant bickering here in the CPT vote, I would run away screaming and never return.
Totally agree, I’m more worried of game developers seeing this and deciding not to participate in a CPT in the future (and having game developers participate add a lot of richness to a CPT). That’s why I’m an advocate for having clear rules that are agreed upon from the start and why I think the more people are allowed to vote in the case of a tie-breaker the better it is (nobody feels powerless in front of the outcome).
There’s always going to be disappointment by some voters with the final vote results. It’s good to minimize perceived powerlessness and injustice as much as possible to avoid bickering.
2) What if someone who voted for one of the games tied at the top, doesn’t cast their vote within the allocated time? Should their original vote automatically be carried over to the tie-breaker, or should the voting period be extended until all the original votes of the tied games have cast their vote?
I believe their votes should automatically be carried over. They have already posted their interest in playing the game, and the voting period has already been extended for long enough.
What happens to the votes from people who voted for all the tied games though? If carried over they effectively have two, or more, votes compared to everyone one else’s single vote in the 2nd round. Also, would people be allowed to change their vote(s) from the 1st round in this scenario?
Is it too late to join for this joint gaming, if you are planning to play Touche: Adventure of the 5th Musketeer if I got right, I would like to join if it isn’t too late.
I’m new to that kind of stuff, but it sounds interesting to share the experience as you play, I’ll try to learn as we go.
edit:
Woah, I now ran through the thread, it looks like a court process I’ll back off until it’s decided.
.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
