Round Voting Rework

[nanotoxin]

If we're updating voting, I think voting should be anonymous, this way people can vote for what they really want as opposed to what they want to win.

[Gollee]

If we're updating voting, I think voting should be anonymous, this way people can vote for what they really want as opposed to what they want to win.

 

I live in the UK, I really don't want a First Past the Post system here as well.

[Nikov]

After some reflection I'd rather have some semblance of this system with announced Extended or whatever caveat the coders request than keep the current past-the-post system. We had another classic "majority want an antag but a plurality wanted extended" vote. Also, one thing to note is that this system will render Secret as a voting option redundant, as any antag round would display as secret. We're just voting to weigh which type of secret we get.

That said I suppose I don't understand the dislike of secret-extended, since I prefer having the suspicion of a standard antag round rather than the complete autopilot of announce extended play. But its not something I'd hang up the whole proposal over.

[UnknownMurder]

enable Anonymously Voting Count

I was following you up until this. What does this mean? Prevent people from seeing other people's votes? Why? I think strategic voting being an option (with our current first past the post system) minimizes dissatisfaction.

[Carver]

The difference between announcing a mode like Nuke and not announcing it, is I don't know whether to ready up with my Nuclear Operative-specific character (And by this, I mean a character that is set to return to lobby if they don't roll Nuke Op) or not if it's unannounced.

[UnknownMurder]

Firstly...Who retracted my post and changed it into their post?

Yes, to whoever edited my post. That is what Anonmyously Voting is. You can see people are being swayed by the counts of other votes.

Thirdly, I do remember mentioning suggest to apply to ALL methods of voting.

Lastly, I do prefer the Alternative Vote with anonymous voting.

[MagnificentMelkior]

Firstly...Who retracted my post and changed it into their post?

Yes, to whoever edited my post. That is what Anonmyously Voting is. You can see people are being swayed by the counts of other votes.

Thirdly, I do remember mentioning suggest to apply to ALL methods of voting.

Lastly, I do prefer the Alternative Vote with anonymous voting.

That was me, sorry, I didn't even realize that happened. Thought I was quoting it and the format got messed up.

Anyway, people's votes being swayed by the running tally is a good thing. When someone switches their vote it indicates that the new thing is what they want their vote to be counted towards (for strategic reasons, yes.) Robbing them of that ability means their vote doesn't go to the most preferable option (and again, the strategic option is in fact the most preferable option, because you want another round type NOT to happen more than you want your favorite round type to know you stood up for it in vain). This would, at vote end, increase dissatisfaction in everyone who lost because it is more likely that an option that a larger group wanted to avoid won.

Do you disagree with that? If so, you have to demonstrate why its bad that people's votes are swayed by votes of others.

[UnknownMurder]

That was me, sorry, I didn't even realize that happened. Thought I was quoting it and the format got messed up.

Anyway, people's votes being swayed by the running tally is a good thing. When someone switches their vote it indicates that the new thing is what they want their vote to be counted towards (for strategic reasons, yes.) Robbing them of that ability means their vote doesn't go to the most preferable option (and again, the strategic option is in fact the most preferable option, because you want another round type NOT to happen more than you want your favorite round type to know you stood up for it in vain). This would, at vote end, increase dissatisfaction in everyone who lost because it is more likely that an option that a larger group wanted to avoid won.

Do you disagree with that? If so, you have to demonstrate why its bad that people's votes are swayed by votes of others.

Restore my post please.

From my point of view, most people are dissatisfied. You already can see the majority of the OOC are fill with tears once they see the vote is suddenly influenced by different union groups. You already see people say, "WHAT!" "Fuck." "Shit, that game mode won again for the second time." However, I have another proposal.

I was researching this deeper on my leisure time earlier, may I propose another voting suggestion to disprove (Becuz Science) my previous suggestion. As you already see in politics voting, once you have casted a vote; you cannot reel back your bait and cast to another choice. To speak in a simple language, you cannot change your mind on what you've had vote on which the STAFFS keeps reminding us to vote on your 'FEELINGS'. I know the feelings may be broad however to interpret what they meant. Don't be influenced by other people that they want you to vote on a game mode with them. Vote what you feel.

It's neither a bad nor a good thing. It is a neutral thing since there will blood to be shed after the voting. I am only suggesting good ways to improve the voting to fit with the satisfied people, especially the voting the involves chances as suggestion given by Lady.

[Eliot Clef]

From my point of view, most people are dissatisfied. You already can see the majority of the OOC are fill with tears once they see the vote is suddenly influenced by different union groups. You already see people say, "WHAT!" "Fuck." "Shit, that game mode won again for the second time." However, I have another proposal.

 

 

From my point of view, there is no "most people" in these threads about changing voting mechanisms. There is a very vocal minority group that gets sick of its least favorite round type being voted in occasionally and throws suggestions at the forums in the hopes of introducing a voting system that favors their preferred round types and/or axes out their least favorite round type.

I am not saying this is specifically you, but rather, that this is a trend I've noticed. For this reason, I honestly don't think the voting mechanism should be on the table as something the community can have tweaked by voting on it or throwing enough suggestion posts at the board. We usually get something reasonably agreeable to plenty of people, and occasionally a voting surge happens for whatever reason and something less-than-popular slips through.

It's not a bad thing, and people need to just let it go.

[Zundy]

From my point of view, most people are dissatisfied. You already can see the majority of the OOC are fill with tears once they see the vote is suddenly influenced by different union groups. You already see people say, "WHAT!" "Fuck." "Shit, that game mode won again for the second time." However, I have another proposal.

 

 

From my point of view, there is no "most people" in these threads about changing voting mechanisms. There is a very vocal minority group that gets sick of its least favorite round type being voted in occasionally and throws suggestions at the forums in the hopes of introducing a voting system that favors their preferred round types and/or axes out their least favorite round type.

I am not saying this is specifically you, but rather, that this is a trend I've noticed. For this reason, I honestly don't think the voting mechanism should be on the table as something the community can have tweaked by voting on it or throwing enough suggestion posts at the board. We usually get something reasonably agreeable to plenty of people, and occasionally a voting surge happens for whatever reason and something less-than-popular slips through.

It's not a bad thing, and people need to just let it go.

 

I agree. Let's face it, they can't be that unpopular if they have the majority vote.

[Nikov]

To be clear, the proposal being discussed is...

66% forces a game mode.

With no super-majority game mode, a mode is selected by a weighted-odds table based on the voting.

If the winner is Extended or chosen by super-majority, the game mode is declared.

Otherwise the declared mode is Secret.

I am willing to compromise on game mode declaration if it gets the weighted-odds table in. Ultimately, that is my desired end state; moving away from the winner-take-all system which presently wastes all votes that aren't for the top two of the Secret, Extended or Nuclear Triad. This will add more variety to the rounds we get throughout the day, but the most popular round types will remain the most common. I don't see who loses.

[Zundy]

To be clear, the proposal being discussed is...

66% forces a game mode.

With no super-majority game mode, a mode is selected by a weighted-odds table based on the voting.

If the winner is Extended or chosen by super-majority, the game mode is declared.

Otherwise the declared mode is Secret.

I am willing to compromise on game mode declaration if it gets the weighted-odds table in. Ultimately, that is my desired end state; moving away from the winner-take-all system which presently wastes all votes that aren't for the top two of the Secret, Extended or Nuclear Triad. This will add more variety to the rounds we get throughout the day, but the most popular round types will remain the most common. I don't see who loses.

 

May as well just have randomised rounds to be honest.

All this will do is lead to annoying instances of everyone playing a round 1 person voted for/act as though randomised due to spread out votes.

[Nikov]

Zundy, that isn't how probability works. If one out of forty players votes Mutiny, we will play one game of Mutiny every forty rounds. At two hours a round, I think the server can suffer through a round of Mutiny once every three days.

[Zundy]

Zundy, that isn't how probability works. If one out of forty players votes Mutiny, we will play one game of Mutiny every forty rounds. At two hours a round, I think the server can suffer through a round of Mutiny once every three days.

 

That's not really how it works in practice though. If you roll a D6 you have a 1in 6 chance of getting a 6. If you roll it the second time you still have a 1 in 6 chance not a 1 in 5. There is absolutely no guarantee you will get a 6 when you roll six times.

No one's playing the game for three days straight without breaks anyway so what if you're like me and onle able to hop on quickly. You vote for whatever along with fourty people and bam, we're all playing Mutiny based on one players choice.

To be honest, if it's not too much work I don't see why this idea can't be trialled to see what actually happens and how everyone feels but I personally feel the system is fine now.

Edit:

Also with a 40/1 vote it'd be over 66% so the majority would win making this example moot.

[Nikov]

First, with forty votes we're rolling a 1d40. I think you know that but I want to be clear. Furthermore the odds are always 1/40, sure. But that's theory, not practice. Yes, each individual instance has the same odds. But we aren't discussing individual instances, but the long-term result of a change to the system. Keep rolling the dice, and on average it will happen once every forty rolls. After a month the one-vote wonder round might happen a half dozen times.

The odds of your second paragraph actually happening is one in forty. You posit it will happen the one time you log on in a day. But in reality that's not likely, since, on average, a single vote will win 1/Vth of the time, where V is the total number of votes cast. This number will be 20-40 or whatever player population is. Speaking of voting, more people will participate if their vote is certain to count in the weighted odds. We won't see one guy throwing his vote away. Everyone will know their vote has a chance, and many will cluster those chances where they want the best odds.

 

Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, its the half-life to fail. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing. Look, the odds of one vote in forty winning is the odds of this sentence changing.

 

Lastly, is it such a terrible thing that a one-vote round mode blindsides the metagame round-predictors and genre-savvy detectives? Is it a given that the one-vote mode will be completely unappealing to all others? Or will the surprise twist reveal that the "malfunctioning AI" was subverted by a crafty Ninja? I actually look forward to odd-duck rounds screwing with metagamer's heads.

[Nikov]

This suggestion had some good discussion and generally positive outlook, so I'd like to see it returned to public eye.

[Butterrobber202]

I would fully approve this, I'm tired of having to switch to secret just because I don't want extended