Coup: mike6426 versus Tanktunker

[donsig]

Do you support Tanktunker in the Office of Head Scientist?

Yes
No
Abstain

Interpretation of this poll:

A Yes vote indicates Tanktunker should remain in office as Head Scientist.
A No vote indicates Tanktunker should be replaced by mike6426 as Head Scientist.
An abstain vores means neither of the above BUT:

No must receive at least 60% of the total votes (including abstain) in order for the coup to be successful and mike6426 to take office. If No recieves less than 60% of the total vote (including abstain) then Tanktunker retains office.

This poll is private.

This poll will be open for 4 days.

Tribal government initiative which authorizes and establishes the proceedings of this coup and poll.

Coup announcement. Note that the coup was supported by two other citizens (Provolution and Nobody).

 

[donsig]

An abstain vores means neither of the above BUT:

This line should read:

An abstain vote means neither of the above BUT:

 

[Tanktunker]

If anyone bothers to vote on issue, rather than opinion, I just want to clear up my "reform" (As mike so eloquently pinned to me).

I had no intention of making all, or even most of the tech polls path based, but rather I assumed, since the discussion regarding the next techs research discussed only paths, that it would be much more simple and efficient to poll on the paths discussed.

I assumed that any and all paths that the citizens advocate was present in the thread, or rather that no special measures should be taken (Like PMs for opinion on tech path) to represent those that decided not to or neglected to express their opinion above that of a vote.

If anything I at least realize that the general opinion regarding this type of polling is negative, and even more so by the citizen that, as far as I understand, advocated it in the past, so in the event that I retain office, I shall either revert to the "classical" form of polling or hold a poll on the standards of polling.

 

[grant2004]

I personally would like to see tech paths continue to be polled, if we can only choose from the techs which we can research immediately we won't have nearly as much choice as we should be able to.

Maybe it would be better to have polls about tech 'goals', techs we want to get in the long term regardless of path, after a poll like that we would then need to discuss and poll the specific path to reach that goal.

 

[Provolution]

I think tech goals should be the main topic in the elections, where a term of 4-6 turnchats generates a maximum of 50 real turns of research. The problem with the main elections right now, is that they practically mean nothing. The problem with beelines is that they are sometimes abused to override immediate needs, and a beeline that covers 20-30 turns already cover more than half the term for a Head Scientist. This is why long term tech goals belong in the elections.

Then, by selecting that Head Scientist, having a long term tech goal as his/her platform in the elections, we can only poll from the options leading up to that tech goal by the end of the term. This would make the office more meaningful and powerful, and the office would be more resilient to polls challenging the office. The long term goal would then be polled against short term tactical research goals that pop up between every turnchat, but everyone would be reminded they voted for the officials platform by doing this. This is just one of many ideas tossed out.

 

[Tanktunker]

Until you stop yammering about how evil and tyrannical I and my secret brotherhood of half the people here that are oppressing the other half by voting for whatever they want, regardless of whether it's what you want or not, you're on my ignore list.

I mean seriously, let it go, there are 15 people participating in this game at best, so any so called "camaraderie" or "back watching" is probably composed of at least half them, and you can't tell them how to vote, sorry.

 

[Provolution]

Until you stop yammering about how evil and tyrannical I and my secret brotherhood of half the people here that are oppressing the other half by voting for whatever they want, regardless of whether it's what you want or not, you're on my ignore list.

I mean seriously, let it go, there are 15 people participating in this game at best, so any so called "camaraderie" or "back watching" is probably composed of at least half them, and you can't tell them how to vote, sorry.

I already am "in the ignore list", which explains all this. Also, I am not worried about "comraderie" and other issues anymore. Just make sure the polls work out fairly, and things will work out, even though you dislike me.

 

[DaveShack]

Moderator Action: This thread has served its purpose, closed.

 

[DaveShack]

Moderator Action: It has come to my attention that I goofed. The poll hadn't closed yet. My deepest apologies, it was not my intent to affect this.

 

[Provolution]

Just make it go for one more day, to be fair

Moderator Action: Fair enough, done. However, let's not use it for additional mudslinging. - Dave

 

[mike6426]

It seems that I lost, oh well, I will run for next term, I can tell you that much.

 

[Nobody]

can you? isnt there some things not you failed in your coup.

 

[mike6426]

the coup laws state that I cannot run for office for 7 days after my defeat, the running is going to happen after that.

 

[Provolution]

Sorry Mike, we did our best, but at least this was a signal that the science office needed to change course. It was not a strong win for the incumbent, but a close race.

I wonder if the sympathy votes will persist in the next election.