Enforce a minimum vote of 25 votes for Crossfire

The solution to that could be as simple as a log message that just lists those that voted for a round type, but didn't ready up if that round type has been selected.

Admins can then bwoink the relevant players.

If you didn't vote for it, then you are (imho) not obliged to ready up for it.

But if you vote for a round type, you better ready up unless you want to be stamped off as a troll. (And dealt with accordingly)

This is preferable.

The solution to that could be as simple as a log message that just lists those that voted for a round type, but didn't ready up if that round type has been selected.

Admins can then bwoink the relevant players.

If you didn't vote for it, then you are (imho) not obliged to ready up for it.

But if you vote for a round type, you better ready up unless you want to be stamped off as a troll. (And dealt with accordingly)

Okay, first of all, the accusations that millions of people came across the border illegally to vote for Crossfire are simply not true.

More seriously, I just don't think Arrow's proposal is a good idea and it could have unintended consequences (e.g. someone realizes how late it is and unreadies before roundstart). How does one vote make someone a troll worthy of bwoinking? One vote doesn't choose meme gamemodes - you need to have several people vote in a bloc for something like that to happen. Even if a group comes together because Coalf plays his Crossfire .ogg and votes Crossfire, we shouldn't penalize players for simply voting. After playing my last round for the day I will often hang out in OOC chat, debrief the last round before hanging it up for the night. Is casting a vote while I am there going to become a federal offense if it so happens that the roundtype me (and a dozen other!) people voted for passed?

What this proposal is, I feel, is enforcement without a purpose. What is the harm coming to the server from a vote not going your way? Or even from someone doing a ding ding ditch with their vote? I hate to keep bringing this up, but one memer isn't going to pass a roundtype. Plus, each and every one of those roundtypes available to vote for have been whitelisted by devs as appropriate roundtypes for the Aurora server. Even after reading this thread, I just don't see the cause of action here.

Because in-person voter fraud just isn't a thing. And we shouldn't waste resources attempting to deal with it.

@LanceLynxx But don't you agree how annoying it is when the round type you been voting for over and over again finally gets picked...only for 6 people not to ready up and force another vote?

Put this in another perspective

imagine you like to play any mode EXCEPT crossfire

you want to play a round

So you ready up

Then crossfire gets voted

You don't want to play it

So you unready.

Imagine being forced to play a roundtype you don't like?

Sure it can be annoying, but if there are more people that DON'T want to play it, I see it as fair. there must be consensus between the players, you cannot force someone else to play if they don't want to.

NINJA EDIT: What the people above me said. If you VOTE for crossfire and THEN unready, you should be punished. If you DIDN'T vote for it, you're in the clear.

This will end up with a lot of players stacking up a lot of notes very quickly.

More seriously, I just don't think Arrow's proposal is a good idea and it could have unintended consequences (e.g. someone realizes how late it is and unreadies before roundstart). How does one vote make someone a troll worthy of bwoinking? One vote doesn't choose meme gamemodes - you need to have several people vote in a bloc for something like that to happen. Even if a group comes together because Coalf plays his Crossfire .ogg and votes Crossfire, we shouldn't penalize players for simply voting. After playing my last round for the day I will often hang out in OOC chat, debrief the last round before hanging it up for the night. Is casting a vote while I am there going to become a federal offense if it so happens that the roundtype me (and a dozen other!) people voted for passed?

The issue is not that you vote for it.

The issue is to vote for it to just troll those that actually want to play and the round then fails to start.

It is a waste of time for everyone involved.

As I said. If you vote for a gamemode, then you should ready up for that round and commit to playing that gamemode.

Voting for a gamemode (especially crossfire) and then un-readying to observe is just saying: "I wanna see the crew get screwed up, but I dont want to get screwed up myself. Enjoy the round fuckers".

And that is the essence of trolling.

If it happens that you voted but realized that it´s too late to play then someone might talk to you about it.

If that behavior happens regularly additional actions might (and should) be taken. (Because you should be able to look at a clock and see if you are still around in clock_time+2h)

(it also enabled us to pull stats and see if we have people that regularly vote for a specific round type and then not ready up for it)

Frankly, the idea that people want to treat unreadying as honest-to-goodness griefing has me reeling in my chair, and looking around my room for a hidden camera because surely, this has to be a very horrible prank.

If people do not want to play a roundtype, they should not be forced to play a roundtype.

The minimum number of votes for crossfire to be voted does need to be raised. As it is with mercenary/raiders, crossfire is twice that, and should of course require more people. Apparently it already requires twenty five people! Good.

Frankly, the idea that people want to treat unreadying as honest-to-goodness griefing has me reeling in my chair, and looking around my room for a hidden camera because surely, this has to be a very horrible prank.

If people do not want to play a roundtype, they should not be forced to play a roundtype.

The minimum number of votes for crossfire to be voted does need to be raised. As it is with mercenary/raiders, crossfire is twice that, and should of course require more people. Apparently it already requires twenty five people! Good.

Again, people misreading. Voting for a certain roundtype that you know won't pass, and refusing to ready up for it in effort to stall the server for any amount of time should be treated as griefing.

If you don't want to play the round, don't, but don't vote a mode you don't intend on playing, just to fuck everybody else over because you know it won't pass.

EDIT: I don't appreciate you referring to this a prank, either. That's very demeaning, especially from an admin.

Funny thing is, there are a bunch of people who actually LIKE the roundtype.

The only REAL form of greifing I have witnessed in voting is deliberately voting extended, and then posting in the chat, "I voted extended because I'm not playing this round" or "I'm not even playing, I voted because I'm logging off" and then legitimately just logging off.

THAT is greifing.

EVERYONE PLEASE READ

I feel like someone is joking with me in a huge way when I read the responses on this thread, because NO ONE seems to understand the problem OP has stated. The problem ISN'T people not readying up!

Here's the problem. We'll say that I am the one who's trolling in this EXAMPLE:

Korinra votes Crossfire

Korinra DOES NOT READY for crossfire

Crossfire fails because 25 people didn't ready up

Korinra votes Crossfire AGAIN knowing the same will happen

Korinra doesn't ready AGAIN, which AGAIN delays for a 3rd vote because 25 people didn't ready up

In this EXAMPLE, why am I not being punished for obvious delaying of the start of a round? I'm voting for Crossfire in this EXAMPLE, but not readying so it fails to start. This is TROLLING, not because I'm not readying up, but because I'm voting for something, then not readying for the thing I voted, because I know that'll make it delay.

If however, I vote Secret, and unready for Crossfire, that's acceptable. I don't want Crossfire, I didn't vote Crossfire, so I am choosing not to play Crossfire. If that causes a second vote, then clearly the minimum requisite 25 people did not want Crossfire, and that's OK. Even if 20 out of the 30 people online want to play it, there aren't enough who want to play it to make it go through.

Suggestion proposed by OP: If 25 people do NOT vote for crossfire, even if it has the MOST votes, it will choose the SECOND most voted for because 25 people did not vote for (and subsequently can safely be assumed won't ready up for) crossfire.

An EXAMPLE:

20 people vote Crossfire

15 people vote Cult

Cross fire will fail if the 15 people choose not ready for it, but the vote will pass Crossfire.

The system should accept that as the likely outcome, and post the following message:

25 minimum vote for Crossfire not reached, round type: Cult

This should be the case with all of the game types though. The one with the most votes that has votes equal to or exceeding the minimum number of people readying up should win. This is because the people voting should ALSO be accountable to ready up when the game type they voted for wins. For instance: I vote for Extended, and you vote Crossfire. I'm not really EXPECTED to play crossfire if my vote doesn't win, but I'm welcome to join if I CHOOSE to. However, because you SPECIFICALLY voted for Crossfire, you're EXPECTED to ready up for the game you VOTED to play. Whereas if in that EXAMPLE, Extended won, I'd be expected to ready up because I VOTED to play Extended.

The key is, if you're voting, it's not that you should think, "I'm voting for the round type", you SHOULD be thinking, "I'm voting for the game mode I want to ready up for".

But you cannot prove this as an issue, Korinra. You have no proof that people are deliberately doing that.

It honestly makes more sense that people who voted for something other than crossfire would unready up. Which is not a violation of the rules or the system, they choose not to ready up for the round. It has the awkward consequence of not being able to start the round and rebooting the vote, in which the crossfire voters should be asking themselves why they're voting a gamemode with less than 50-60 active players in the lobby.

But you cannot prove this as an issue, Korinra. You have no proof that people are deliberately doing that.

Now we can:

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/4632

Messages the admins with those that voted for a specific round type, but then didnt ready up if that round type won the vote.

But you cannot prove this as an issue, Korinra. You have no proof that people are deliberately doing that.

We have already had confessions in this very thread that at least one person tends to vote for game modes they have no intention of playing. It's the same thing.

Edit: Also, Kudos to [mention]Arrow768[/mention] for coding an alert about this very issue.

Add a bit of code that enforces a minimum vote for Crossfire, and maybe allow vote results to be visible to admins so that anybody that votes for the round but doesn't ready up to meme the server can be treated as griefing (which it technically is).

The second part has been implemented.

Do you still wish to have the first part implemented or should we moved that to completed and see how that is going to work out (after the next dev merge) and reopen another topic if needed. (specifically for requiring a minimum number of votes for the gamemodes)

But you cannot prove this as an issue, Korinra. You have no proof that people are deliberately doing that.

 

Now we can:

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/4632

Messages the admins with those that voted for a specific round type, but then didnt ready up if that round type won the vote.

Please create a separate forum post to discuss this.

One Suggestion per Thread

This forum thread has gotten off the rails because the title is misleading. This git does not address the topic at hand, and a forum thread that clearly indicates what's being passed off on the server here, namely adding functionality which will allow admins to punish people for voting (and then not readying) should be added so people can see what is going on.

I absolutely -1 this. I am with Nursie on this and wish that Skull or Abo would step in here and shut this down. This is not what we should be doing - punishing people for how they vote. Don't misconstrue me - I know you think the issue is people voting for something and then not readying for the gamemode - we shouldn't be tossing notes into people's files for voting while they debrief their last round of the night. And, because Crossfire is only one of two or three gamemodes that could possibly not meet the min player count (and therefore provide logs to admins), I think this code is a thinly veiled attempt to bully people off of voting crossfire.

Yo can we just agree that if you arnt readied you don’t get a vote?

Yo can we just agree that if you arnt readied you don’t get a vote?

I mean, I guess that could be a thing. And it may solve the concerns raised.

Here's the thing, this all looks like a railroading of Crossfire and people who play crossfire. Coding in ways to prevent certain gamemodes from being played.

I'm all for changes if they are intended to be fair. But it sure looks like this has grown out of a salt pile against Crossfire and I just don't think the git proposal is appropriate in that light.

I absolutely -1 this. I am with Nursie on this and wish that Skull or Abo would step in here and shut this down. This is not what we should be doing - punishing people for how they vote. Don't misconstrue me - I know you think the issue is people voting for something and then not readying for the gamemode - we shouldn't be tossing notes into people's files for voting while they debrief their last round of the night. And, because Crossfire is only one of two or three gamemodes that could possibly not meet the min player count (and therefore provide logs to admins), I think this code is a thinly veiled attempt to bully people off of voting crossfire.

Except I like crossfire. I always vote it, and I always play it, just because I enjoy seeing people complain about the round type :^) If you don't want to play crossfire, don't vote it and don't play it, but if you're going to vote it and not ready up, knowing it's going to be a revote because you refuse to ready for a mode you voted for, that's griefing.

Admins will be able to see who does exactly this, so I suppose that's a good start, at the least.

[...]

Please create a separate forum post to discuss this.

 

One Suggestion per Thread

 

This forum thread has gotten off the rails because the title is misleading. This git does not address the topic at hand, and a forum thread that clearly indicates what's being passed off on the server here, namely adding functionality which will allow admins to punish people for voting (and then not readying) should be added so people can see what is going on.

[...]

I have contacted you via discord and given you a chance to correct this wrong statement which you did not.

So I am correcting you now.

From the Forum Rules for this Subforum:

• [...]
  
• Read the whole topic before you post in it. (Yes, that means all of it)
  
• [...]

Aparently you failed to do that.

Or you would have noticed my post directly before the one where you made your accusations in.

Where I have explained that this implements the second part of the suggestion from the OP.

In the future: Please read the topic. Yes. All of it.

I didn't understand the context of what you meant. Also I didn't see your discord. And I have been reading all of the posts. Regardless, the title is misleading for the product here. Devs need to communicate better and hiding these gits in a post with a title that doesn't appropriately describe the fix is not good communication.

Devs need to communicate better and hiding these gits in a post with a title that doesn't appropriately describe the fix is not good communication.

The statement is again incorrect. As explained, it implements part of the suggestion by the OP.

Where else would you expect this to be posted ?

Regarding your implication that there this hasn't been properly communicated:

I first made a proposition in this topic and received positive feedback for it from quite a few people.

Then I implemented it and again posted the link to the pull request in the topic.

The discussion thread has also been linked on github.

If a user is looking through the topic, he is informed.

And if a user is looking through the pull requests on github, he is informed aswell.

Also, apparently you are aware of it ?!

Generally, I only feel that people that voting for a round type that requires a minimum amount of people to ready, should ready up. Inversely, there are vote options that don't require a minimum amount of people to ready up or are very little that it doesn't really matter, and I feel for those it's not necessary to always ready up if the count is reached.

If you're not playing a round, I feel you should not vote. If you don't have a suitable amount of time to play a reasonable amount of the round, I feel you should also not vote. Ideally voting should be reserved to people that will join the round, though that is not limited to people that ready up. There are times when I ready up since I want a specific role first and other times I don't since I'll join with a role that's not taken during the ready up phase. I'm sure there are others like this.

From a personal point of view, I only ever vote for secret, or in the odd case extended. There are some case where I vote for a specific game mode but that's usually as a way to showcase new features of a gamemode via gameplay.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/4632

This PR would allow us to log trends from people, and since while incidents such as the ones cited in this thread aren't a daily occurrence, they do happen from time to time and can be significantly frustrating as they do delay rounds by a period of time, which is an issue with people on a tight schedule.

Moving to completed as that has been implemented.