Talk:New Votesystem - Revision history

Sigma at 13:09, 8 August 2011

2011-08-08T13:09:12Z

Sigma: Borda Count

2011-08-08T13:07:40Z

Borda Count

Pm at 11:00, 11 April 2008

2008-04-11T11:00:30Z

Tneo at 11:12, 19 December 2007

2007-12-19T11:12:09Z

Osai: /* voting times and game start */ new section

2007-12-19T02:39:34Z

‎voting times and game start: new section

Tneo at 19:28, 18 December 2007

2007-12-18T19:28:08Z

Tneo at 19:25, 18 December 2007

2007-12-18T19:25:39Z

LittleMikey at 13:34, 22 November 2007

2007-11-22T13:34:57Z

LittleMikey at 13:34, 22 November 2007

2007-11-22T13:34:04Z

Volny at 08:14, 8 November 2007

2007-11-08T08:14:58Z

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 I'd also advise strongly against negative voting. Regardless how it is done, it is psychologically the worst way possible. Positive encouragement is far better treatment of people. The usual way that (relative) majority wins is IMO working well and easy to understand. --[[User:pm|pm]], 11 April 2008
-A not too difficult way out of this dilemma could be to use the "Borda count" voting system. This is a preferential voting system where each voter ranks the candidate plans in descending order of preference; this avoids having to select only one winner/loser, and also decreases the likelyhood of tied/unclear results. There are a few options possible. Suppose there are ''n'' plans competing:
+A not too difficult way out of this dilemma could be to use the "Borda count" voting system. This is a preferential voting system where each voter ranks the candidate plans in descending order of preference; this avoids having to select only one winner/loser, and also decreases the likelihood of tied/unclear results. There are a few options possible. Suppose there are ''n'' plans competing:
 :*Voters are simply obliged to rank all plans. Probably the easiest way; the plan ranked first by the voter gets ''n'' points, the second ''n'' - 1... down to 1.
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :*Voters are free to decide how few/many plans they include on their list (''m'' = 1...''n''). Two options: the ''m'' plans selected are given ''n'', ''n'' - 1, ... points or ''m'', ''m'' - 1, ..., 1. The latter favours including more candidates, since more points give you a heavier vote.
-After everyone submits their ballots, the votes are tallied and the candidate with the largest total wins. This system tends to favour broad consensus, since candidates that are ranked highly by many, but not necessarily #1, can win over plans that are ranked #1 by some but not many. [[User:Sigma|Sigma]] 13:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
+After everyone submits their ballots, the points are tallied and the candidate with the highest total wins. This system tends to favour broad consensus, since candidates that are ranked highly by many, but not necessarily #1, can win over plans that are ranked #1 by some but not many. [[User:Sigma|Sigma]] 13:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 8 August 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I'd also advise strongly against negative voting. Regardless how it is done, it is psychologically the worst way possible. Positive encouragement is far better treatment of people. The usual way that (relative) majority wins is IMO working well and easy to understand. --[[User:pm\|pm]], 11 April 2008		I'd also advise strongly against negative voting. Regardless how it is done, it is psychologically the worst way possible. Positive encouragement is far better treatment of people. The usual way that (relative) majority wins is IMO working well and easy to understand. --[[User:pm\|pm]], 11 April 2008
		+
		+	A not too difficult way out of this dilemma could be to use the "Borda count" voting system. This is a preferential voting system where each voter ranks the candidate plans in descending order of preference; this avoids having to select only one winner/loser, and also decreases the likelyhood of tied/unclear results. There are a few options possible. Suppose there are ''n'' plans competing:
		+
		+	:*Voters are simply obliged to rank all plans. Probably the easiest way; the plan ranked first by the voter gets ''n'' points, the second ''n'' - 1... down to 1.
		+	:*Voters are obliged to each rank a subset of ''m'' out of the total ''n'' options. The selected plans get ''m'', ''m'' - 1, ..., 1 points, the remaining ''n - m'' plans get 0 points.
		+	:*Voters are free to decide how few/many plans they include on their list (''m'' = 1...''n''). Two options: the ''m'' plans selected are given ''n'', ''n'' - 1, ... points or ''m'', ''m'' - 1, ..., 1. The latter favours including more candidates, since more points give you a heavier vote.
		+
		+	After everyone submits their ballots, the votes are tallied and the candidate with the largest total wins. This system tends to favour broad consensus, since candidates that are ranked highly by many, but not necessarily #1, can win over plans that are ranked #1 by some but not many. [[User:Sigma\|Sigma]] 13:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
		+

	== voting times and game start ==		== voting times and game start ==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Maybe just some communication about voting would be sufficient. It is now not clear to everyone that a member decides when voting ends and that a member points out the winner, so that building can start. For now it is just after good judgement to get things going or not. A fixed voting end period is what I prefer, so that everyone can see when voting will end. As well planning should not be happening as soon as voting starts. So starting a building plan period, then a voting period and then the plan building.  [[User:tneo|tneo]] , 18 December 2007, 20:28
 == voting times and game start ==
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 Something like that would do the trick as well. The way voting works can be communicated via the Wiki as well I suppose, so that everybody who joins the Servers will know about it and we can point it out as a set of rules. --[[User:Tneo|Tneo]] 11:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 19 December 2007
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Of course this always depends on the activity.--[[User:Osai\|Osai]] 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)		Of course this always depends on the activity.--[[User:Osai\|Osai]] 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	Something like that would do the trick as well. The way voting works can be communicated via the Wiki as well I suppose, so that everybody who joins the Servers will know about it and we can point it out as a set of rules. --[[User:Tneo\|Tneo]] 11:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:39, 19 December 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Maybe just some communication about voting would be sufficient. It is now not clear to everyone that a member decides when voting ends and that a member points out the winner, so that building can start. For now it is just after good judgement to get things going or not. A fixed voting end period is what I prefer, so that everyone can see when voting will end. As well planning should not be happening as soon as voting starts. So starting a building plan period, then a voting period and then the plan building. [[User:tneo\|tneo]] , 18 December 2007, 20:28		Maybe just some communication about voting would be sufficient. It is now not clear to everyone that a member decides when voting ends and that a member points out the winner, so that building can start. For now it is just after good judgement to get things going or not. A fixed voting end period is what I prefer, so that everyone can see when voting will end. As well planning should not be happening as soon as voting starts. So starting a building plan period, then a voting period and then the plan building. [[User:tneo\|tneo]] , 18 December 2007, 20:28
		+
		+	== voting times and game start ==
		+
		+	I understand what you mean. Maybe we can point out some fixed times for all those periods. It would make the game independent. If you need a member to declare times and winners it might took some time to start the. That's not good for the attractiveness of our Server.
		+
		+	'''Some Time Proposals''':
		+	* Building the [[Cashmaker\|MM]]: 5-10 years in-game (approximately 1.5 - 2.5h)
		+	* Creating Plans: 3-5 years in-game (approximately 1 - 1.5h)
		+	* Voting: 3-5 years in-game (approximately 1 - 1.5h)
		+	This means, every game has a preparation time of ~3h - ~5h. I think, that is okay.
		+
		+	Of course this always depends on the activity.--[[User:Osai\|Osai]] 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 18 December 2007
Line 5:		Line 5:
	LittleMikey wrote what I think. This system might take long. I've seen plans that we've been waiting on starting building and that we started building around 2000, which is kind of late.		LittleMikey wrote what I think. This system might take long. I've seen plans that we've been waiting on starting building and that we started building around 2000, which is kind of late.

−	Maybe just some communication about voting would be sufficient. It is now not clear to everyone that a member decides when voting ends and that a member points out the winner, so that building can start. For now it is just after good judgement to get things going or not. A fixed voting end period is what I prefer, so that everyone can see when voting will end. As well planning should not be happening as soon as voting starts. So starting a building plan period, then a voting period and then the plan building.	+	Maybe just some communication about voting would be sufficient. It is now not clear to everyone that a member decides when voting ends and that a member points out the winner, so that building can start. For now it is just after good judgement to get things going or not. A fixed voting end period is what I prefer, so that everyone can see when voting will end. As well planning should not be happening as soon as voting starts. So starting a building plan period, then a voting period and then the plan building. [[User:tneo\|tneo]] , 18 December 2007, 20:28

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 18 December 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I dont like this idea of voting. I much prefer the simple old method of voting for the plan you like, the plan with the most votes after a member decides there have been enough wins. Asking for people to vote on what plan they like the least will cause alot of people getting upset IMO. --[[User:LittleMikey\|LittleMikey]] Some time, on some date, from some place.		I dont like this idea of voting. I much prefer the simple old method of voting for the plan you like, the plan with the most votes after a member decides there have been enough wins. Asking for people to vote on what plan they like the least will cause alot of people getting upset IMO. --[[User:LittleMikey\|LittleMikey]] Some time, on some date, from some place.
		+
		+	LittleMikey wrote what I think. This system might take long. I've seen plans that we've been waiting on starting building and that we started building around 2000, which is kind of late.
		+
		+	Maybe just some communication about voting would be sufficient. It is now not clear to everyone that a member decides when voting ends and that a member points out the winner, so that building can start. For now it is just after good judgement to get things going or not. A fixed voting end period is what I prefer, so that everyone can see when voting will end. As well planning should not be happening as soon as voting starts. So starting a building plan period, then a voting period and then the plan building.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 22 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This idea will prefer unintresting, plain desigins. As an example you may think of somehow innovative plan, which will be supported by 2/3 of all people. In this system that other 1/3 will still successfully manage to kill it. This is good reason for me to call this system stupid :) --[[User:Volny\|Volny]] 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)		This idea will prefer unintresting, plain desigins. As an example you may think of somehow innovative plan, which will be supported by 2/3 of all people. In this system that other 1/3 will still successfully manage to kill it. This is good reason for me to call this system stupid :) --[[User:Volny\|Volny]] 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

−	I dont like this idea of voting. I much prefer the simple old method of voting for the plan you like, the plan with the most votes after a member decides there have been enough wins. Asking for people to vote on what plan they like the least will cause alot of people getting upset IMO.	+	I dont like this idea of voting. I much prefer the simple old method of voting for the plan you like, the plan with the most votes after a member decides there have been enough wins. Asking for people to vote on what plan they like the least will cause alot of people getting upset IMO. --[[User:LittleMikey\|LittleMikey]] Some time, on some date, from some place.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 8 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This idea will prefer unintresting, plain desigins. as an example you may think of somehow innovative plan, which will be supported by 2/3 of all people. In this system that 1/3 will still successfully manage to kill it. This is good reason for me to call this system stupid :) --[[User:Volny\|Volny]] 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)	+	This idea will prefer unintresting, plain desigins. As an example you may think of somehow innovative plan, which will be supported by 2/3 of all people. In this system that other 1/3 will still successfully manage to kill it. This is good reason for me to call this system stupid :) --[[User:Volny\|Volny]] 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)