In one word, Huge.
Right now with 44 votes, I view it a 22-22 tie. Anyone else care to
vote?
In one word, Huge.
Right now with 44 votes, I view it a 22-22 tie. Anyone else care
to
vote?
James;
You don't have a tie; you have 22 votes for leave things alone, and
all other votes spread among changes at various levels including I
don't care one way or the other which you count as a vote for change.
Give it up. If you want a cut off in a game set that up when you set
up the game. There is no reason to change the rules, or policies. I
had forgotten this poll it has been so long since you updated it, but
it took this long to get even enough votes for other options to total
the clear message of the majority of the voters that things should
remain the same that you should have gotten the message instead of
lumping every other response together to even come up with a result
that only is a tie. If this were an election who would win?
···
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "jmason86" <jmason86@h...> wrote:
kingoftherill wrote:
If this were an election who would win?
Bush?
Gavin
Actually it was 22-20-2 in favor of those wanting the change. I
shouldn't have mixed the 2 "I don't care" votes with the votes
wanting the rules to stay the same.
Right now there it 29 votes for change, 26 for change, and 2 votes
that don't care. If it were an election, the policy would be
changed. This isn't a democracy though...it's a business.
I know some of the votes from the pro-bug camp come from veterans,
but I would think many of the votes from this camp come from
inexperienced players who will change their minds once they have a
few games under their belts and have experienced a game with a player
who is forcing their team to play turns well past the point when the
game should have ended.
This is what we have right now:
2 to 1 nations. 7 12.28%
3 to 1 nations. 12 21.05%
4 to 1 nations. 6 10.53%
5 to 1 nations. 3 5.26%
6 to 1 nations. 1 1.75%
I enjoy bug hunting. 1 1.75%
I enjoy being a bug. 3 5.26%
Rules should stay the same. 22 38.60%
I don't care. 2 3.51%
You don't have a tie; you have 22 votes for leave things alone, and
all other votes spread among changes at various levels including I
don't care one way or the other which you count as a vote for
change.
Give it up. If you want a cut off in a game set that up when you
set
up the game. There is no reason to change the rules, or policies. I
had forgotten this poll it has been so long since you updated it,
but
it took this long to get even enough votes for other options to
total
···
the clear message of the majority of the voters that things should
remain the same that you should have gotten the message instead of
lumping every other response together to even come up with a result
that only is a tie. If this were an election who would win?
Interesting results. Any feedback here?
Clint
···
Actually it was 22-20-2 in favor of those wanting the change. I
shouldn't have mixed the 2 "I don't care" votes with the votes
wanting the rules to stay the same.Right now there it 29 votes for change, 26 for change, and 2 votes
that don't care. If it were an election, the policy would be
changed. This isn't a democracy though...it's a business.I know some of the votes from the pro-bug camp come from veterans,
but I would think many of the votes from this camp come from
inexperienced players who will change their minds once they have a
few games under their belts and have experienced a game with a player
who is forcing their team to play turns well past the point when the
game should have ended.This is what we have right now:
2 to 1 nations. 7 12.28%
3 to 1 nations. 12 21.05%
4 to 1 nations. 6 10.53%
5 to 1 nations. 3 5.26%
6 to 1 nations. 1 1.75%
I enjoy bug hunting. 1 1.75%
I enjoy being a bug. 3 5.26%
Rules should stay the same. 22 38.60%
I don't care. 2 3.51%> You don't have a tie; you have 22 votes for leave things alone, and
> all other votes spread among changes at various levels including I
> don't care one way or the other which you count as a vote for
change.
> Give it up. If you want a cut off in a game set that up when you
set
> up the game. There is no reason to change the rules, or policies. I
> had forgotten this poll it has been so long since you updated it,
but
> it took this long to get even enough votes for other options to
total
> the clear message of the majority of the voters that things should
> remain the same that you should have gotten the message instead of
> lumping every other response together to even come up with a result
> that only is a tie. If this were an election who would win?Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
****************************************************************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com
UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA
Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325 (preferred)
US Phone: 541 840 4669 10-5pm PST Weekdays
US alternate Fax: 801 650 8073 Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************
Ooo dear. A bit patronising there I think, and you also seem very keen to interpret your results in favour of your own strongly held view. Your survey was a bit o' fun, but I'm afraid it doesn't have much validity as a gauge of opinion because:
- There was little preliminary debate
- There was no preliminary discussion of the wording of the poll or options
- The wording and the options were given by a single individual who was already committed to a strong viewpoint
- The options were imprecise and overlapped. For example "I enjoy being a bug" and "I enjoy bug hunting" probably equate directly to wanting "no change".
- There was no agreed closing date for the poll (which makes for a large number of votes though many may be casual, and allows for canvassing by anyone keen enough to get their mates to try to sway it)
- The relative necessity* of the poll was not established
- The relative interest of Clint was not established (this makes a huge difference to the seriousness of the votes cast)
*The relative necessity is actually the key one IMO. I have long favoured a system of pre-game agreements, which would mean you could have different sets of house rules for "grudge games", "NKA games" "To the death games" "2 to 1 games" "tournament games" and so on. Such a system would mean that team sign ups were encouraged and that anyone could get into his "perfect" game sooner or later. Best of all, it would help to keep MEPBM fresh, by adding to the DIVERSITY of games available. The assumption behind your poll and your personal analysis of the figures is that we all have to have all our games bound by the supposed will of the tiny majority. There's a difference between the democratic need to submit to a president elected by a majority and the need to all wear blue/grey boilersuits because the chairman says we should.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
···
At 22:32 03/08/2003, jmason86 wrote:
Right now there it 29 votes for change, 26 for change, and 2 votes
that don't care. If it were an election, the policy would be
changed. This isn't a democracy though...it's a business.I know some of the votes from the pro-bug camp come from veterans,
but I would think many of the votes from this camp come from
inexperienced players who will change their minds once they have a
few games under their belts
Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
Interesting results. Any feedback here?
I think setting any hard-and-fast policy is bound to backfire more often than it will solve any problems.
What would make more sense is to ask both teams to agree to a policy where 2/3rds of the team could vote to drop, and such a vote would end the game at that point. That way, you avoid forcing the game to end, while simultaneously keeping one or two individuals from making things difficult for everyone else.
jason
···
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Players are always welcome to ask that in games anyway.
Clint
···
At 02:03 04/08/03, you wrote:
Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
> Interesting results. Any feedback here?
>I think setting any hard-and-fast policy is bound to backfire more often
than it will solve any problems.What would make more sense is to ask both teams to agree to a policy
where 2/3rds of the team could vote to drop, and such a vote would end
the game at that point. That way, you avoid forcing the game to end,
while simultaneously keeping one or two individuals from making things
difficult for everyone else.jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
****************************************************************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com
UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA
Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325 (preferred)
US Phone: 541 840 4669 10-5pm PST Weekdays
US alternate Fax: 801 650 8073 Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************
Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
Players are always welcome to ask that in games anyway.
Sure, I was thinking more that ME would make it official policy to propose this to players, so there aren't any surprises later.
jason
···
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Ooo dear. A bit patronising there I think, and you also seem very
keen to interpret your results in favour of your own strongly held
view.
Of course! I could have just copy/paste and let the results speak
for themselves. One thing I notice about your post is how you
ignored the patronising tone of the player I responded to. Also
noticed you voted on the side of the bugs(said with a grin as I stir
the Hornets nest).
Your survey was a bit o' fun, but I'm afraid it doesn't have much
validity as a gauge of opinion because:
Every poll is subject to interpretation
True, every poll is subject to interpretation, but they have to be
doing something right because there are so many of them.
- There was little preliminary debate
There was plenty of debate. I know there was over 100 e-mails last
time we opened this can of worms. That wasn't the first time this
subject has been debated either...
- There was no preliminary discussion of the wording of the poll or
options
Actually there was discussion of this too. I went back and changed
the wording of the poll to satisfy the pro-bugs.
- The wording and the options were given by a single individual who
was already committed to a strong viewpoint
True, but if the viewpoint came from someone without a strong
viewpoint, then there probably wouldn't be a poll or discussion.
- The options were imprecise and overlapped. For example "I enjoy
being a bug" and "I enjoy bug hunting" probably equate directly to
wanting "no change".
That's how I interpret it too. They count as "no change".
There was no agreed closing date for the poll (which makes for a
large number of votes though many may be casual, and allows for
canvassing by anyone keen enough to get their mates to try to sway
it)
You have to choose a closing date for the poll when you create it.
The closing date is December 31st of this year. I can close it
anytime before that date too.
- The relative necessity* of the poll was not established
I would say it was established before the poll was started. This is
the rehash. It all started in a NKA scenario when the captain of the
team we were playing against surrendered to us on behalf of his
team. At this point many of the players on each side traded PDFs to
each other. Because of the surrender most of the nations on my team
didn't send in orders. Then we get our turns back and found that all
but one nation on their team had dropped...we had a bug on our
hands. This same thing has happened to me many times in the past.
- The relative interest of Clint was not established (this makes a
huge difference to the seriousness of the votes cast)
Again, have to differ with you...not just being bone-headed here.
Clint did state he would have like to implement this policy in the
past but didn't think it had enough player support. I would say he
is correct. I'm still holding on though actually hoping other
players experience a bug so they will vote against the bug or change
their vote to one of the ratios.
*The relative necessity is actually the key one IMO. I have long
favoured a system of pre-game agreements, which would mean you could
have different sets of house rules for "grudge games", "NKA
games" "To the death games" "2 to 1 games" "tournament games" and so
on. Such a system would mean that team sign ups were encouraged and
that anyone could get into his "perfect" game sooner or later. Best
of all, it would help to keep MEPBM fresh, by adding to the
DIVERSITY of games available.
The problem with diversity is that there isn't enough players to play
in all these differing scenarios. Also, most of the time players
presume other players won't behave in this type of manner and don't
think ahead of the game start to implement one of the ratio rules.
There's also the problem of solo games where they wouldn't have the
chance to come to agreement of a ratio before the game start because
most of the players don't know each other. I think there needs to be
a set of ratio rules mostly for solo games. Then in team/grudge
games the policy should be set too unless the players agree that bugs
are welcome.
The assumption behind your poll and your personal analysis of the
figures is that we all have to have all our games bound by the
supposed will of the tiny majority.
Actually the majority of players favor a ratio. Not sure how you are
getting "tiny" especially after reading the poll results I posted in
my previous message.
There's a difference between the democratic need to submit to a
president elected by a majority and the need to all wear blue/grey
boilersuits because the chairman says we should.
Again, the majority of voters favor the ratio. Of course, I'd be
fine with the company chairman forcing ALL to submit to THE RATIO too.
> Ooo dear. A bit patronising there I think, and you also seem very
>keen to interpret your results in favour of your own strongly held
>view.Of course! I could have just copy/paste and let the results speak
for themselves. One thing I notice about your post is how you
ignored the patronising tone of the player I responded to.
OK. My apologies if you felt that, I was responding to your actual words, not the previous poster's.
Also
noticed you voted on the side of the bugs(said with a grin as I stir
the Hornets nest).
Indeed. Could be another thing against the poll though couldn't it - not a secret ballot. I could be living in fear now of the 2 to 1 chaps coming to let my tyres down 
> - There was little preliminary debate
There was plenty of debate.
Not specifically on wether a poll was needed; what to ask; what answers to offer; and when to close.
> - The wording and the options were given by a single individual who
>was already committed to a strong viewpointTrue, but if the viewpoint came from someone without a strong
viewpoint, then there probably wouldn't be a poll or discussion.
You can call for a poll without being the pollster. To set a more convincing indicator of opinion you need first to get some input from those of an opposite view, and then some mediation from those of a more moderate position. You need to establish a broad concensus as to what the question and options should be. (I'm not suggestiong it's easy)
>There was no agreed closing date for the poll (which makes for a
>large number of votes though many may be casual, and allows for
>canvassing by anyone keen enough to get their mates to try to sway
>it)You have to choose a closing date for the poll when you create it.
The closing date is December 31st of this year. I can close it
anytime before that date too.
Which IMO is a weakness. You should set a reasonable time (I'd say no more than 2 weeks) and advertise the closing date along with advertising the poll.
> *The relative necessity is actually the key one IMO. I have long
>favoured a system of pre-game agreements, which would mean you could
>have different sets of house rules for "grudge games", "NKA
>games" "To the death games" "2 to 1 games" "tournament games" and so
>on. Such a system would mean that team sign ups were encouraged and
>that anyone could get into his "perfect" game sooner or later. Best
>of all, it would help to keep MEPBM fresh, by adding to the
>DIVERSITY of games available.The problem with diversity is that there isn't enough players to play
in all these differing scenarios.
Also, most of the time players
presume other players won't behave in this type of manner and don't
think ahead of the game start to implement one of the ratio rules.
I disagree. If Clint offers just a limited number of games for filling by loners, with specific house rules or Pre Game Agreements(PGAs), a player has the option of either accepting a place on one of those games, or assembling a team, which could then propose its own PGA (probably from a list of possibles: 2/1, 3/1, to_the_death, WotR, NKA etc.) The new Player Rating System, or even a simple player list will make it easier for players to assemble teams, and an attractive choice of PGAs will provide incentive.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
···
At 03:06 04/08/2003, you wrote: