|
Diogines posted:I think this is a very good point and well stated. If you guys want no more no-votes, we will get rid of them but I think they are useful to build consensus. Your actions will ultimately be decided by your collective will, I think that can be built as much by rejecting the options you really don't like, as much as it is by picking the ones you do. I think no votes are totally fine. They are just a bit annoying when everyone changes their vote because they love Jehovah. That's why I think you shouldn't be able to change your vote over and over, unless there is some discrepancy like with D/F this round.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
In saying that ^^^^ Changing vote to R. For some reason I passed right over it, that's what I meant by praying to Asherah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Lanky Coconut Tree posted:Actually going anywhere seems like a bad idea that will get us lost some more. Danal is pretty calm, and yelling seems like it could go either way. This is my vote too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
El has our back. We made the right choice to worship him.  M. Climb up that tree and see if we can spot the campfire. The monsters lurking in the shadow were pushed back by El, we can let Danal stay on the ground for a few moments without having to fear that he'll be eaten the moment we lose him out of sight. As for the anti-voting, I can see why people want to see it gone. But my biggest fear is that if this is done, there will be a question in the near future with 10 different options of which only one is in favor of Asherah. Even if team El is much larger than team fish demon, if their votes are spread out over four different options, team fish might win by unifying behind their one option to eat Danal or something. I won't vote on this matter, because I think it's something Diogines should decide for himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
O and YES
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I think no votes are totally fine. They are just a bit annoying when everyone changes their vote because they love Jehovah. That's why I think you shouldn't be able to change your vote over and over, unless there is some discrepancy like with D/F this round. First, El is not Jehovah. Second, Of course I'd rather vote FOR an option I like than vote AGAINST some other option, unless that horrible option (from my PoV) has a significant chance of winning, and my chosen option doesn't. If we weren't allowed to change our votes, people who vote later on would have a significant advantage over people who vote early. Why are people viewing the NO votes as confrontational? Hell, I voted for Asherah in our childhood choice, because I liked that option, and only voted against him later because he seemed too cartoonishly villainous for my liking. I even gave maximum points to the forest and Pagem options. As you can see, the options I like end up losing more often than not. Should I be upset about that? Did other Goons ruin my splendid idea about Og's life? I'd say that getting angry about people voting differently than you in a parliamentary CYOA on the Internet is... not a very good idea. Simply put, as long as everyone's vote has the same weight, why would you restrict people's ability to choose what they want to vote for? Speaking of which, I'm assuming that the only reason why votes like "50% vote for A, 50% vote for B" aren't allowed is because they'd make jobs of our overworked volunteer vote-counters even more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I think no votes are totally fine. They are just a bit annoying when everyone changes their vote because they love Jehovah. That's why I think you shouldn't be able to change your vote over and over, unless there is some discrepancy like with D/F this round. Basically this. No-votes in principle are a good thing and it kind of stinks to lose them. Unfortunately we've shown that we can't use them responsibly, as they're being abused by strategically changing not-votes to block other players which is petty and childish. What really needs to be banned is strategic re-votes and reactionary metagaming (for the record,I think suddenly deciding to murder our best friend counts as this) but not-votes are the easiest to police. my dad posted:Why are people viewing the NO votes as confrontational? Hell, I voted for Asherah in our childhood choice, because I liked that option, and only voted against him later because he seemed too cartoonishly villainous for my liking. I even gave maximum points to the forest and Pagem options. As you can see, the options I like end up losing more often than not. Should I be upset about that? Did other Goons ruin my splendid idea about Og's life? I'd say that getting angry about people voting differently than you in a parliamentary CYOA on the Internet is... not a very good idea. Because they kind of are? Not intrinsically, but the way that they're being used. I think getting upset over a CYOA is pretty dumb myself, but you can't deny this thread is getting pretty adversarial--we've already had a mod pop in and tell us to stop reporting each other. It's best we nip this in the bud now before things get really out of hand. Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
No to not votes If enough people vote with not votes and A ends up winning, why couldn't those people just vote for A in the first place? Not votes are lazy ways of loving over other players
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
O, and keep NOT votes in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Kinda curious why people assume we can't climb trees for poo poo. We're strong and nimble from swimming in the ocean, and probably very well used to scrambling big slippery rocks wet with seaweed and various slimes. This really wouldn't be that much different. Probably easier. I'd be pretty shocked if an athletic kid like ourselves couldn't tackle this. Unless we end up trying to climb a cactus or something, but I doubt Diog would be that mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Because they kind of are? Not intrinsically, but the way that they're being used. I think getting upset over a CYOA is pretty dumb myself, but you can't deny this thread is getting pretty adversarial--we've already had a mod pop in and tell us to stop reporting each other. It's best we nip this in the bud now before things get really out of hand. The main problem lies with Goons who take other people's votes personally. Nipping the problem in the bud means not doing that and ignoring/reporting people who do. I'd like to stay away from "complaining about complaining" territory, so that's all I'm going to say. I assume that the mods are more than capable of dealing with any excess goon-drama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Yes to not votes. I do think the problem is that Asherah voters can simply vote for a single controversial option while the rest of the voters are picking between a variety of more peaceful/engaging options, allowing them to more easily reach consensus and overwhelm a split decision. Unless the votes were split into categories "choose from these votes in column A OR this vote in column B" with the winning column getting selected and column A narrowed down to its voting pattern, the majority of players are going to be upset without not votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Voting M and Yes to having not votes, but suggesting that you can only change your vote once
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Changing my vote to  and  to not not having not votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
I had hoped to update this morning, but we will wait a few more hours, to make sure everyone has a chance. Voting closes in 3 and a half hours, I'll post the update then.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
This is nerdy but I'm interested in voting policy so roll with it for a bit. One of the concerns brought up is that the plethora of non-asherah options vs one asherah choice will result in the asherah bloc taking an important vote despite not representing a majority opinion as the other voters will be diluted among other options and fail to form a plurality to oppose them. This is a similar problem to the US first past the post electoral system, it's also why we have basically no real third parties at the national level. I propose that we implement instant runoff voting in the thread and simultaneously ban vote changing and negative votes. This is literally the system designed to prevent the problem we are all complaining about. It will allow people to vote for the options they really want while being secure in the knowledge that they are not enabling an option they hate to win by failing to vote as a bloc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
^^^^ Exactly. This is 100% my thoughts. This FPTP poo poo sucks and needs to be changed. Instant runoff and vote-changing bans would have a much better chance of representing the "electorate's" wishes as a whole. Disargeria posted:I do think the problem is that Asherah voters can simply vote for a single controversial option while the rest of the voters are picking between a variety of more peaceful/engaging options, allowing them to more easily reach consensus and overwhelm a split decision. I think the Asherah voters are voting for a single controversial option because they're the ones being actively marginalized by the El voters. Just a guesstimate but I'd say there are probably about 35-40% pro-Asherah voters, 50-55% pro-El voters, and the remainder being people like me that think we should still be worshiping both or don't care. 35-40% is a minority but it's a large one. At the moment the pro-El voters are aggressively voting against anything remotely related to Asherah (seriously, we just had a ton of votes shifted to stop Og/Enkidel from praying to Asherah when it was likely to do nothing) and that needs to stop. The bloc of Asherah voters is large enough that they need to have a voice in shaping the story, or else there are going to be a lot of unhappy players. It's a classic tyranny-of-the-majority situation and something needs to be done about it. I think the Asherah voters would pick less extreme options if they felt they had more of a say in the direction that the story is going. For the record if the positions were reversed and it was the Asherah voters marginalizing the El voters I'd be saying the same thing. Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Alright, but would the spreadsheet then need to be private to prevent 'gaming' the vote by vote blocs? I mean, these issues were my concern back in the very first vote when I started tabulating our vote over who to spend time with but they were largely ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
U and, after thinking on it, NO. I like the idea of not-votes, but thinking on it, I don't like the way it's working out with them. I think there should be discussion and a majority decision, rather than a majority decision of one thing not to do and a runner-up-winner. That said, I don't want anonymous voting. I like seeing what people vote, it makes the game a little more personal to the players. Nettle Soup fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
We are not doing anonymous voting. The game is meant to be approachable and easy to get into. That scares people off.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:The bloc of Asherah voters is large enough that they need to have a voice in shaping the story, or else there are going to be a lot of unhappy players. It's a classic tyranny-of-the-majority situation and something needs to be done about it. I think the Asherah voters would pick less extreme options if they felt they had more of a say in the direction that the story is going. F For me personally, I won't be an unhappy player, I'll be a former player. At this point, I can barely sympathize with Og. Every time any hint of him even remembering that this morning some white guys marched into his village and kidnapped him after murdering 3 people including his dad and that he has worshiped Asherah his entire life gets voted down, I lose more interest in him. I'm not particularly interested in seeing him murder some kid but the fact he has no negative feelings toward these weirdos that don't speak his language just seems weird and out of character to me. I just want him to remember his roots. And fish lasers. And I don't particularly care about the anti-votes normally, except that they've been used to push my last three vote options to near zero. But none of them were going to win, anyway. If the No voters had just picked a vote to back, my votes would have been defeated by a majority instead of getting subtracted to nothing. It feels pretty crappy to have a bunch of folks target your only way of interacting with the game and tell you to stop trying to play it. So I vote(futilely, since it'll just get down-voted) R and abstain from the No vote vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:I think the Asherah voters are voting for a single controversial option because they're the ones being actively marginalized by the El voters. Fishgod voters are voting for single controversial options because in the last few updates, the only choices made available have been controversial. Additionally, they seem to not be in keeping with what Og knows about the religion. If I recall correctly his daily worship included offerings, recitation, and in extreme cases ritual bloodletting. Never once was a human sacrificed unless I completely missed an update or something. In fact, the king killed more people than fishdad ever has, as far as Og knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Canuck-Errant posted:Alright, but would the spreadsheet then need to be private to prevent 'gaming' the vote by vote blocs? I mean, these issues were my concern back in the very first vote when I started tabulating our vote over who to spend time with but they were largely ignored. No, with IRV it won't matter. Gaming the vote is pointless as the only thing that matters on your ballot between two options is how you rank the individual options, not how far apart they are. There is no reason to vote strategically when you are ranking things in order of preference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
 and
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
, but take Danal's hand before we do, so we don't lose track of him. If something approaches while we're distracted by our introspection, we don't want him to get spooked and become separated from us. to not-votes. If there were some way to avoid vote dilution, like instant runoff voting or automatic agglomeration of votes that follow a common interest, I'd be fine with disallowing negative votes. On the other hand, that seems like significantly more work for those tallying the votes. Unless Diogines is willing to go to the extra trouble of implementing such a system, not-votes are absolutely necessary to forming an accurate consensus. We've already had a couple of instances where the  option would have won due to vote dilution if it weren't for not-votes, even though an overall majority were dead-set against it.Speaking of which, who decided that being an 'Asherah voter' means supporting random child murders and such? I'm not exactly keen on El myself, I'm just even less keen on Og/Enkidel inexplicably turning into an inept psychopath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Cathair posted:Speaking of which, who decided that being an 'Asherah voter' means supporting random child murders and such? I'm not exactly keen on El myself, I'm just even less keen on Og/Enkidel inexplicably turning into an inept psychopath. Technically, Diogenese did. Human sacrifice wasn't even on the table until it was put on the list by the GM. Before that I was supporting a vengeance-based killing. But it's obvious that we aren't going to get any vengeance with a combination of the other voters and the GM being against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Random Idiot posted:Fishgod voters are voting for single controversial options because in the last few updates, the only choices made available have been controversial. Additionally, they seem to not be in keeping with what Og knows about the religion. If I recall correctly his daily worship included offerings, recitation, and in extreme cases ritual bloodletting. Never once was a human sacrificed unless I completely missed an update or something. In fairness, one of the options shot down in the last vote was "Pray to Asherah", which was likely to have as little effect as praying to El. But pigeonholing Not-Voters as being specifically out to get Asherah-Voters is dumb. They are voting to reflect their own interests, not out of any imagine hostility to anything that relates to Asherah. Last vote for example, I voted against those options, not because I hate Asherah and people who vote in his favor, but because the winning options (which were neck and neck at the time) seemed like a better choice. Praying to El was better than praying to Asherah because we are in the middle of the forest, and El has been known to help people, rather than Asherah, who just demands tribute with the threat of punishment. And comforting Danal was a better option because we don't know how the shark tooth magic works, and the only effect we've seen is casting lightning bolts, which pretty much has zero application outside of fighting, and even then it didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
rex monday posted:At this point, I can barely sympathize with Og. Every time any hint of him even remembering that this morning some white guys marched into his village and kidnapped him after murdering 3 people including his dad and that he has worshiped Asherah his entire life gets voted down, I lose more interest in him. I'm not particularly interested in seeing him murder some kid but the fact he has no negative feelings toward these weirdos that don't speak his language just seems weird and out of character to me. I just want him to remember his roots. And fish lasers. These are kinda my thoughts... It doesn't matter that he was a poo poo to us or that he wasn't our blood-dad, kids don't just forget their parents overnight because the strange woman who scarred us for life at the age of 4 suddenly announces she's our real mother. Or forget and abandon their God (despite being spoken to by and having recently seen a rather showy demonstration of said-Gods powers) simply because our new mother has declared it as lies. I guess we'll see where it goes once we get out of these woods and into a real city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Instant run-off would seriously be ideal. It would solve every problem. People could pick exactly what they want without worrying about making strategic votes. You don't even have to rank all the choices, you can just rank a couple. If there was a poll site that could do this easily, or some bit of spreadsheet code that would make this easy to implement, I think this would be incredibly beneficial for the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:It's a classic tyranny-of-the-majority situation and something needs to be done about it. Tyranny of the majority? What's wrong with the majority winning? Isn't that the entire point of the vote? And why are you trying to generalize why people vote for certain options? (I'm addressing not just you but most of the other posters who participate in this discussion) There are a few people in the thread that are very loud about their reasons for voting (not)X, and you are acting as if they represent every person who voted that way. The only real difference between us getting Og killed in a dumb way and making him the Great God of Goonganga lies in how much fun we're having while doing that. Stop trying to shoehorn in the voting procedure that would give your favorite kind of choice the highest chance of winning. Right now, everyone has an equal ability to participate, and a great way to say exactly what they want. Participating in a game is fun, even if you lose. Making a very simple voting system like "1 positive vote, no vote-changing" would prevent people from accurately voting for their preferred outcome, thereby reducing their ability to participate. Greatly complicating the voting system is a good way to sever a lot of players from the game. If it discourages people from voting IRL when serious matters are at stake, why the hell would someone waste time on complicated vote in an internet-based game? The thread would quickly devolve into a circlejerk made out of the most stubborn, spergy posters, and it would lose a big part of its charm. Yes/No + Option voting is a pretty decent compromise. People are not being marginalized in a CYOA. Most people here are not in voting blocks or whatever you'd call them. We're playing a game together, and we're voting for whatever option we like the most or against whatever option we like the least in this game that is supposed to be fun to participate in. Instead of having fun with the world created by Diogines and discussing the options given to us, we're arguing about the voting system, and anonymous voting of all things. Now, on the topic of the actual vote, I imagine Og as a kid with a lot of bravado, and the ADVENTURE TIME (U) option represents that perfectly. Too bad it won't win. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Raserys posted:Voting Not-Not-Not Votes. I'm voting for this. We need our not-votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:20
|
|
SoroScrew
|
not-votes aren't the problem here. we must be freed from the tyranny of first past the post voting...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
my dad posted:Now, on the topic of the actual vote, I imagine Og as a kid with a lot of bravado, and the ADVENTURE TIME (U) option represents that perfectly. Too bad it won't win. With instant run off voting you could vote for this, and have your second preference...whatever you wanted, so if your first vote was eliminated (by having the least amount of votes) you'd still have a say in the direction we take. As mentioned, this gives people the luxury of trying to form the story however they want, without having to worry about blocking Ashera blood god options.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
The Boring Platform will adopt the following self regulated voting policy. 1- Vote the most boring option. 2- Self limit to one vote change, including NO votes, if they exist (in the case that it looks as if something terribly exciting might occur). 3- Vote changes can be geared toward the most Boring option likely to win as the vote progresses, but still limited to only one vote change per round. 4- The Boring Platform does not stipulate which option is the most Boring, but recognizes the efficacy of voting blocs. 5- The Boring Platform feels free to make its views known since it is a given that these will be ignored. One unintended consequence of the Boring Platform is that it is a platform of self reliance. Og the Defier, Enkidel the Emancipated. It is humanist platform in a land of deities. It is not atheist, as clearly these powers exist, and may involve prayer, sacrifice and such things at times. It will also necessarily be a platform of survival and deceit at times. Transparent voting and No votes force player interaction, some of which might include conflict, all happening in the head of Og the Insane, Enkidel the Delusional. We seem to have voices in our head, that we do not hear until they bubble up to some level of action, urging us in turns toward acts profane and sacred. We are clearly already relatively insane, incapable of simple things like grieving or recognizing our own condition in the world. In a world where gods are manifest, self reliance is clearly insanity, therefore the Boring Platform supports transparent voting and No votes. Vote Boring! Please ignore this message. "Blessed be the Sleepy, for soon they shall nod off." - Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
I'm voting for again. Oh and Yes to No-Votes, at least for votes where we use FPTP. Absum fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Sogol posted:The Boring Platform will adopt the following self regulated voting policy. I'm in, let's make sure we start learning how to count over ten; we're gonna need it for our new career as an accountant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
my dad posted:Making a very simple voting system like "1 positive vote, no vote-changing" would prevent people from accurately voting for their preferred outcome, thereby reducing their ability to participate. You want evidence, read rex monday's posts--he's considering dropping out of the game because he feels his votes don't matter any more. So am I to be quite honest. (Not because I don't think my votes don't matter but because I don't like the increasingly adversarial nature of this game) The closeness of the votes over whether or not to drop not-votes is pretty good evidence that there are a lot of people unhappy with the way the voting is currently going, so I think that's a pretty good sign that something needs to be done about it. Majority votes are OK when you have a wide variety of choices each with their own supporters. When things get polarized and people group into one of two "camps," like we're seeing now, that it becomes a problem. Hate to break it to you but the thread is already losing a lot of its charm--we've had mod intervention, it's been downvoted, and we're seeing players leaving and/or thinking about leaving. You want to see the thread devolve into a circlejerk of stubborn, spergy posters, then let it continue the way it has been.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:With instant run off voting you could vote for this, and have your second preference...whatever you wanted, so if your first vote was eliminated (by having the least amount of votes) you'd still have a say in the direction we take. As mentioned, this gives people the luxury of trying to form the story however they want, without having to worry about blocking Ashera blood god options. The thing is, it would complicate the vote enough to reduce the number of participants. I like Something Awful CYOAs, but I'm still frequently reacting to list votes with "Hell no, I'm not doing that!" I imagine that a lot of posters would be doing the same. CYOA isn't supposed to mean Choose Your Own Accountant. I could be wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
I'm fine with tallying ranked-choice votes, since it's just a matter of punching more numbers into the spreadsheet; it's just when people keep changing votes from there that it gets annoying. Well, that and having to punch in numbers for 10 vote options. Would having 'top 3' ranked options be an acceptable compromise?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
why not just automate voting/vote tallying? its the year 2013, we don't need to keep canuck-errant locked up in a dark room with a copy of excel and a case of red bull
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:42
|
|