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 is all quite simple if one applies Robert’s Rules and/or basic Parliamentary Procedure to the system.
In the case of a tie, all people who previously voted, and only those people are allowed a second vote. The only person not allowed a second vote is the “chair” or President, or whatever you want to call the leader of the group. That would be Sefir in this case.
In fact, the leader, according to the rules, is never allowed to vote except to break a tie. But, I think we can make a exception here.
If, after the second vote, there is still a tie, the leader is allowed to cast a vote to break the tie.
It’s worked for centuries.
Why exclude people who haven’t voted for either of the tied games? In the event of a tie it seems likely they would make the difference, and of course potentially expand the number of participants in the playthrough.
I’m interested in the process that Chrissie has proposed, and that Izno is kindly trying to clarify the details of, but I’d still be opposed if this is the alternative (the rtrooney (Karlok camp?) proposal).
In the case of a tie, all people who previously voted, and only those people are allowed a second vote. The only person not allowed a second vote is the “chair” or President, or whatever you want to call the leader of the group. That would be Sefir in this case.
Why start excluding some people from voting, especially since the complaint is that the current process excludes some from the second vote?
And that is actually NOT how it works in countries, where you actually have a two step voting process for presidential elections etc.
The only thing I wonder about is why 5-7 days would be necessary, since it’s not a complete new vote.
Only the tied games are being voted on, not all 11 (or however many).
But if other people want 5-7 days instead of 1-2, I’m OK with it. I’m also OK with 1-2 days.Only to give everyone (especially people who don’t visit the forums daily) a chance to cast their second vote.
And it is not about the number of games we are voting on, but about the number of people that has to vote. If there are only 2-3 people deciding then you can reasonably expect it to happen relatively quick, but if you have 15-20 who has to be given a fair chance to vote, then you need time.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
Um, not sure I want to actually interject here. There’s a certain wimp factor that screams: stay away! How about this: in the case of a tie, both games will be played as a CPT, one after the other. The two CPT leaders together decide which will be played first.
Um, not sure I want to actually interject here. There’s a certain wimp factor that screams: stay away! How about this: in the case of a tie, both games will be played as a CPT, one after the other. The two CPT leaders together decide which will be played first.
Things chance when you add time.
Players voting for the game might no longer be interested in playing it, or might no longer be able to join any CPT, new games might be proposed that everybody is much more interested in playing, new members interested in joining a CPT ... Just look at Memento Mori 2 as an example, last time it got 8 votes and ended at second place, this time there was only 4 people interested in playing it.
It would simply be wrong to commit anyone or everybody to a CPT that doesn’t start until 1-2 months later.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
It is all quite simple if one applies Robert’s Rules and/or basic Parliamentary Procedure to the system.
In the case of a tie, all people who previously voted, and only those people are allowed a second vote. The only person not allowed a second vote is the “chair” or President, or whatever you want to call the leader of the group. That would be Sefir in this case.
In fact, the leader, according to the rules, is never allowed to vote except to break a tie. But, I think we can make a exception here.
If, after the second vote, there is still a tie, the leader is allowed to cast a vote to break the tie.
It’s worked for centuries.
Why exclude people who haven’t voted for either of the tied games? In the event of a tie it seems likely they would make the difference, and of course potentially expand the number of participants in the playthrough.
That’s not what rtrooney is saying. He’s saying peole who didn’t vote at all in the first vote don’t get to vote in the runoff. If the games you voted for didn’t win, you can still vote in the runoff.
The differences between rtrooney’s suggestions and Iznogood’s suggestions seem to be…
1. The leader of the voting doesn’t vote in rtrooney’s system—except to break a 2nd tie. (This refers to the leader who tallies the votes, not the people who volunteer to lead the CPT’s of the games.)
In Iznogood’s system everyone can vote, whether they are the one who tallies the votes or not.
2. In rtrooney’s system, people who didn’t vote at all in the first voting don’t get to vote in the runoff if there is a tie. Iznogood’s system allows latecomers to vote.
It’s possible I’ve missed some other differences.
I’m more partial to Iznogood’s system, where more people can vote.
rtrooney’s system does have a solution for what to do in the event of a 2nd tie, but it means the person tallying the votes probably won’t get a chance to vote.
1. The leader of the voting doesn’t vote in rtrooney’s system—except to break a 2nd tie. (This refers to the leader who tallies the votes, not the people who volunteer to lead the CPT’s of the games.)
In Iznogood’s system everyone can vote, whether they are the one who tallies the votes or not.
Why should a person who takes time from their busy life to tally votes not be able to vote? On the contrary I think they definitely should vote.
2. In rtrooney’s system, people who didn’t vote at all in the first voting don’t get to vote in the runoff if there is a tie. Iznogood’s system allows latecomers to vote.
It’s possible I’ve missed some other differences.
I’m more partial to Iznogood’s system, where more people can vote.
I am completely with you and Izno on this. If the whole point of the second vote is to be democratic, than there should be no restriction on who can vote again. Any imposed rules prevents more people from participating.
Welcome to Adventure Gamers Buldozer! - it’s a pity you didn’t turn up a week earlier but never mind as I’m sure we’ll be playing Touche in the future!
Thank you very much Chrissie, that would be great!
.
Ok, so the main argument here seems to be over what should be the default method regarding who gets to vote in the result of a tie. Sorry to simplify and apologies if I’ve got any of this incorrect: -
A) Only people who voted for all of the tied games.
B) Only people who voted for any of the tied games.
C) Only people who voted at all.
D) Anybody at all.
Of those I’d go for A) due to its likely speed and decisiveness, very closely followed by D).
However, far more than any of those, I’d argue that there doesn’t need to be a default method. Let whoever is organising the voting choose whatever the hell they feel like doing at the time, can be from the above methods or any other they can come up with. If people don’t like their choice - well tough - they could simply volunteer to do the organising instead next time. 
Maybe we could vote on what to do in case of a tie at the same time we vote games for the CPT.
That way whatever group of people is interested in the CPT will be able to choose what happens if there is a tie.
This is NUTS!
For every perfectly logical way to break it, (a tie,) there is an attempt to fine tune it. Which only results in further complications. Noddy takes us all the way from only those who voted for the tied games get a vote to everyone that drops in on the conversation gets a vote. And while I totally get crabapple’s idea, requiring a new vote just to determine how ties will be broken before game voting even starts not only takes a lot of time but it also lacks consistency. Somebody entering the voting process for the first time, only having seen what came before, might be totally put off when the rules have changed.
Barring anybody being able to agree on anything, which seems to be the case, I suggest the following:
In the case of a tie, Jackal will toss a coin that determines the winner. On the outside chance that more than two games are tied, I have a coin toss method for that as well, but let’s wait for that to happen before discussing it.
Edit: I’m embarrassed to say that this reminds me of US Congressional deliberations.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
while I totally get crabapple’s idea, requiring a new vote just to determine how ties will be broken before game voting even starts not only takes a lot of time but it also lacks consistency. Somebody entering the voting process for the first time, only having seen what came before, might be totally put off when the rules have changed.
People would vote for what to do in case of a tie at the same time they’re voting their games for the CPT. So it wouldn’t take extra time. Since different people might be available for different CPTs, the vote could be done for every CPT.
Ok, so the main argument here seems to be over what should be the default method regarding who gets to vote in the result of a tie. Sorry to simplify and apologies if I’ve got any of this incorrect: -
A) Only people who voted for all of the tied games.
B) Only people who voted for any of the tied games.
C) Only people who voted at all.
D) Anybody at all.Of those I’d go for A) due to its likely speed and decisiveness, very closely followed by D).
However, far more than any of those, I’d argue that there doesn’t need to be a default method. Let whoever is organising the voting choose whatever the hell they feel like doing at the time, can be from the above methods or any other they can come up with. If people don’t like their choice - well tough - they could simply volunteer to do the organising instead next time.
I’ve lost count of how many pages of debate there is about how to decide a tie so as much as I hold my hat up to the organiser of the voting they really have to listen to the voters!
I do think the voting of a game needs not to be marred by complications like adding your preferences on how a tie-breaker should be resolved.
I appreciate your break-down Noddy of the possible ways of resolving a tie-breaker & perhaps it should be thrashed-out before the next CPT turns up but I believe that whatever is decided has to be an established & consistent rule for every CPT in the foreseeable future.
My thought is that in event of a tie between 2 games (or maybe 3) those games go to an open vote from anyone! (i.e option D & hence to promote the greatest participation). I can’t get my head around that it would take longer? - why? Just add on a couple of days to vote for games in the ‘shortlist’ as has happened in the current method of those who voted for the ‘winning’ games deciding - I’m sorry, I don’t get why you need any more time than that for a more open vote???? (If you’re interested you’re going to be looking - right!)
Personally I’ve never understood why so many people get so het up over deciding a tie-break and proceed to throw their toys out of the pram. This is meant to be enjoyable and fun, not some sort of ideological punch-up!
No matter how this goes and whatever is decided I’ll be easy with, but with one very serious exception.
Allowing anybody to vote (Option D in Noddy’s list).
The reason for this is straightforward. If people can’t be bloody bothered to vote during the main voting period what makes them think it’s ok to come in at the death and vote. After all, if they’d voted in the first place there’s a reasonable chance no tie-break would be needed at all.
If asked for my preferred method then it would be as has been used for the last couple of ties: those that voted for the tied games are the only ones that can vote now. For those who complain that they voted and want the chance to vote for the tied games well, you’ve already had the chance. It’s normally obvious when the chance of a tie could happen so all you needed to do was add a vote for the game you’d prefer to be a CPT DURING the main vote. It isn’t exactly difficult, is it?
Having said that I’ll iterate my overall point. I can happily live with anything bar Noddy’s option D.
Life is what it is.
However, far more than any of those, I’d argue that there doesn’t need to be a default method. Let whoever is organising the voting choose whatever the hell they feel like doing at the time, can be from the above methods or any other they can come up with. If people don’t like their choice - well tough - they could simply volunteer to do the organising instead next time.
In theory I don’t disagree. The problem is however that that was the compromise we reached last time, but when push came to shove some simply didn’t respect that compromise.
Remember that this is not the first time we have had this whole discussion, it is also not the second time, nor the third, (counting from memory) it is at least the sixth time we have had this very same discussion (with different variations). So unless the rules are set in stone and covers all the details, there is zero hope that we also won’t have this discussion many times in the future.
My thought is that in event of a tie between 2 games (or maybe 3) those games go to an open vote from anyone! (i.e option D & hence to promote the greatest participation). I can’t get my head around that it would take longer? - why? Just add on a couple of days to vote for games in the ‘shortlist’ as has happened in the current method of those who voted for the ‘winning’ games deciding - I’m sorry, I don’t get why you need any more time than that for a more open vote????
You could just as well argue that you don’t need 10-14 days for the initial vote. Anyone interested would keep an eye on it, and the whole thing could be done in a couple of days!
I’m not saying that you need a fixed amount of time for a tie-breaker. If everybody has cast their vote in a couple of days, then great, no need to prolong it any further, but if they haven’t, you need to give them a fair chance to actually do so.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
From Noddy’s list of suggestions, I am up for either C or D with one caveat:
Whoever voted for one of the tied games the first time, and did not get a chance to vote the second time will have their vote automatically count towards whatever they voted for the first time around. The reasoning for that is that they could have been busy to vote again, so we shouldn’t punish them if they didn’t get a chance to visit the forums during the duration of the second vote.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
