Fairness of new voting system

[Muratus del Mur]

might be a bit offtopic and better in a separate topic, but still, i want to post this question:

What do you think about the fairness of the new voting system. I plan to use it , with similar but not allways identical rules, for diciding other major issues about the realm.

I am waiting for a honest reply from both sides please.

Note:
i didnt judged the arguments themselves but judged if the vote was well argumented or not, as ai said, BUT in a few cases the arguments where PRO while the vote was negative, or the opposite, in such cases i gave a low rating because you cant claim reasons for an opposite vote than the one you are giving. Also i judged some of the arguments that sounded realy undocumented or wrong, some of you , a few did that. Anyway, i did my best not to influence the results with my personal opinion , i ddint voted, but i want to hear from you if i succeeded or not to do a fair trial.

[Grido]

Mur, i split it, cos i wouldnt mind more debating on the original topic and this might confuse things there

I like the points /2 for land and popularity, it helps give extra points to those who might actually know what they're talking about. The issue i had with the voting score for the argument bit was that, a lot, i counted ~18 times i wrote this (yes some used other arguments as well), said for yrth to stay because he had the right to exile me, which wasnt an issue at all when talking about deposing him, i even said a load of times in the forum about how i fully accept that he had the right to, and that it was just the catalyst for me starting matters, not a point for it. So while i get that you werent rating the votes themselves, when people use something which isnt actually a point, as a point, i think they should get less / no points. This goes for both sides actually, i noticed a few peope voting against him in a few cases for silly reasons, which should probably have been discounted.

If that makes sense, anyway.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Grido

[Muratus del Mur]

You can't expect such a trial to be judged bsed ONLY on the resons you raise. If most pointed out that as an argument its clear it was something to consider , regardless if you say it shouldnt be considered. Otherwise ppl would have not mentioned it, don't you think?

[Metal Bunny]

One issue that bothered me was kind of nitpicking one.
The part where you ask us to put in your arguments, politely asks us to keep things short.

But when I shift through the arguments, I notice that one extremely long post had 9 points, but all the arguments in them were basically already in the forum.

So what are we supposed to do next time? Let one person make an enormous list of logical reasoning and compelling arguments, let him/her post it on the forum, so that everyone can quote him/her?
(that is what I /will/ do next time such a petition comes along. It's all about loopholes and circumventing the system, in order to make it stronger)

What I suggest is that instead, you let people make a really long list of arguments and reasons and all the other stuff, and let them debate about it.
Then, you pick every single reason and argument and put it in a list.

Then you let the 100 people vote on those reasons and arguments, letting them grade them on a scale of 1-10. With below 5 negative. Above 6 positive and 5&6 neutral. Or something like that.
Then you add in the reputation and the land affiliation.
And then you put in a last small box to allow people to comment something small or give one last extra reason.


This way, less reading, and everyone is aware of all the reasons and arguments.

*edit*
Oh and if people think that a reason is totally off-topic or too stupid for words, you can add in a '0' or '?' option. Making it not count or something.

*edit edit*
Oh and if maybe you really like to read Mur, then perhaps you can change the 1-10 thingy for each reason into a tiny bar where people can write what they think of it.

So for example (1-10 based vote)
Yrthilian is paranoid/untrustworthy as a leader as he exiled his nr.2
1-4 is negative, with 1 being more negative than 4.
5&6 is neutral, with 5 being slightly more negative than 6.
7-10 is positive, with 10 being more positive than 7.

example (tiny-bar-to-write-what-you-think variant)
Yrthilian is paranoid/untrustworthy as a leader as he exiled his nr.2

I say yes, because a leader has to keep his people in mind first. Exiling Grido was a sure sign of paranoia. (this would be like.. an 8 or 9 on the 1-10 scale)

I say no, because a king has the right to do whatever he wants to. Grido had to accept it and he's just doing this now out of petty revenge. (2-4 on the 1-10 scale)

I say yes and no, because while a king has the right to do whatever he wants to, a king should still keep in mind the consequences of his actions. Exiling your nr.2 is a very drastic thing to do, even if Grido in some sense was betraying his king through non-action. Maybe some reprimand or warning would have been better at the time, even if betrayal, if you wish to see that dilemma as such, is a gross offense during war time, or any time. (this would be a 5-6 on the 1-10 scale)

Edited October 8, 2009 by Metal Bunny

[Death Bell]

I felt it was fair enough. and this should be continuing

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Grido's point is that claiming Yrthillian should remain King because he hasn't done something that no one has ever claimed was wrong is not a reason at all. It would be like someone saying Yrthillian should remain King because he doesn't eat Babies. I mean, as far as I know, that's true, but it's really not a worthwhile point...

Or even more correlated, perhaps someone might state that Yrthillian had the right to banish Metal Bunny. Well of course he did(I don't know what MB was banished, but assuming he was). Metal Bunny was attempting to oust him. Anything Yrthillian did while he was King to MB was entirely fair. Saying that Yrthillian should remain King because he had the right to do ONE thing that everyone agrees that he had the right to do and no one considers a real issue, including those to whom the offense was commited, is NOT good reasoning.

[Grido]

I did have something written here, but Guybrush said it better.

I do accept that the vote was final, btw, just stating my point.

[Czez]

I don't think it's fair if my vote wasn't counted. I voted in the forum, before the new feature was implemented, and commented only there. I see other arguments from the forum in summary. Were those duplicates?

[Pipstickz]

I think it would be better if there was an age restriction on it...100 days?

I dunno, just a suggestion.

[Grido]

there was already a restriction of 50 days

[Pipstickz]

Oh, I didn't try to vote with any accounts under 50 days...that's another thing...alts

[Muratus del Mur]

by short i mean keep a short list of arguments, but don't cut out important arguments just to keep it short

for example long means to talk about same argument a lot, without bringing anything new, like some did , wrote a lot and received low score, and short means to keep a clear list of arguments with enough description to be understood clearly. Assuming i was willing to give a 10, it could have been reached by writing 10-20 lines of arguments, clearly describing them.

Voting on the forum and then NOT voting on the new system is not an excuse, you could have copy pasted your arguments there. It was clearly announced that was the official way to decide the result, not the forum.

An alt verification system was added now , after this voting. I missed that aspect initialy, but next time it will be checked better.
A check for teritory will be also improved for future votes that are influenced by land affiliation. In this regard i am thinking of a citizenship flag for players to be implemented soon.

[Malaikat Maut]

I think that the voting system was fair. There are likely ways that it can be improved, but that's not my purpose for posting today. The real "problem" that I see with using the democratic process to end quarrels or deliver justice (in a game world) is that it does nothing to change the minds of those who feel victimized. Especially in a vote this close, nearly 50% of the participants will walk away still feeling the situation unresolved, but they must now cope with those emotions as their transgressor has just received a public pardon.

Basically, I don't believe that the vote can resolve issues that are not black and white or that don't have a clear and definite end. In this particular situation, the vote only restored Yrth's kingship. It didn't and could not mend the damage that some of his people feel was caused, so for them the problem not only lingers, but may be intensified.

[Czez]

I was unable to access the new system.

[Muratus del Mur]

define unable

[asryn]

I have a concern about the voting system as it is currently implemented, namely that it takes place too quickly. When the election for King of Necrovion was first announced, I imagined that there would be some time (at least a few days) for potential candidates to consider their plans, put forth strategies, talk with potential allies or rivals, etc. And then once the list of candidates was known, time for the rest of us to ask questions and discuss the issues to determine who the best choice would be. I am not suggesting the entire process should be dragged out for weeks, merely that there should be some set timetable (maybe 2-3 days per stage), ideally with opportunities provided for discussion and debate.

When the election takes place this quickly, and then closes without warning, it favors candidates who throw their hat into the ring on impulse, without thinking through their goals, plans, and responsibilities. If the idea is to provide stable leadership for the lands, this seems ill-advised.

On the voter side, having so little time to vote means that those who made snap decisions based on popularity were more likely to have their votes counted than those who tried to think carefully about their choices. In taking the time to vote responsibly, by talking to the candidates and asking questions about their plans and qualifications, I missed the opportunity to vote altogether.

Let me be clear that I am in no way disparaging any of the candidates or voters, nor do I have any issue with the final outcome. I am simply pointing out what I see as a flaw in the implementation of the election that reduces its potential to select the most qualified leaders for the lands.

[Muratus del Mur]

votes will take as long as required to get an enough number of votes to be relevant. For example yrthilian voting took longer because it reached a high number of votes slower, while this one exploded from the second i posted it up.
I am ssuming this was becaues ppl thought its an dobvious choice and thats visible in the final count too. I am sure the voting on lr will be slower for example as the competition is tighter.

Voting rate drops exponentialy, first and second day are alomost all days given. Who is not active two days in a row during the festival will probably have little knowledge about what to vote anyway. I dont want to offend anyone but i cant wait after all to vote , if they cant decide within a day, with all the docs in front of them, then thats it. I dont want to turn md into an election campaign. The votes are given based on the actiivy and reputation of that candidate untill then, the docs are just a way to make clear their intentionsm but people already know who each candidate is. You can familiarize with the candidate during the voting times.

[asryn]

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='13 October 2009 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1255481629' post='44614']
votes will take as long as required to get an enough number of votes to be relevant. For example yrthilian voting took longer because it reached a high number of votes slower, while this one exploded from the second i posted it up.
I am ssuming this was becaues ppl thought its an dobvious choice and thats visible in the final count too. I am sure the voting on lr will be slower for example as the competition is tighter.

Voting rate drops exponentialy, first and second day are alomost all days given. Who is not active two days in a row during the festival will probably have little knowledge about what to vote anyway. I dont want to offend anyone but i cant wait after all to vote , if they cant decide within a day, with all the docs in front of them, then thats it. I dont want to turn md into an election campaign. The votes are given based on the actiivy and reputation of that candidate untill then, the docs are just a way to make clear their intentionsm but people already know who each candidate is. You can familiarize with the candidate during the voting times.
[/quote]

I agree that this election would probably have had the same result regardless of process. And I suspect that you are also right that in a closer race there will be more time to vote. So while I would still prefer a set voting time, I see your point that it may be less likely to affect the results than I had assumed.

Personally, I would prefer not to base my vote solely on the activity and reputation of the candidates, although those certainly factor into it. I would like to also consider their plans for the realm they want to lead, and how they intend to go about achieving their goals. I would prefer to vote for a candidate who has a vision for the land that I would like to see implemented, rather than for the person who is friendliest, or most talkative, or who has accomplished things in the past but is less motivated for the future. These aren't things that can be determined instantly, no matter how active I am or how well I know the candidates, and most of the candidates' documents gave only vague suggestions as to their plans. I believe that including these factors in the decisions of voters would increase our chances of choosing effective leaders, and I think the current system makes it very difficult to do so - although I do respect your concerns about a drawn-out election campaign.

Well, if your intention is for us to vote solely based on what we already know about the candidates, then I agree that we have sufficient time to do so. And if I choose to decide differently, and the process stays as is, then at least I will know in advance next time to be more aggressive in my questioning.

Edited October 14, 2009 by asryn

[Czez]

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='13 October 2009 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1255431575' post='44557']
define unable[/quote]
The link didn't work.

I thought this was related to the system being implemented following the forum vote, but I'm not sure why. When it didn't work, I commented in the forum instead, hoping it would be counted.

I was able to use the system for the Necrovion election without problems. Not sure if it's relevant, but I've recently changed browser (from opera to firefox, for mac).