Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game IV: Polls' started by ravensfire, Feb 29, 2008.
I see, so the poll was rigged this way for a desired outcome?
I voted in the other poll on the reading that it would only count if "Yes" won this poll.
How is it rigged exactly? If a majority of people vote "No" in this poll the other poll doesn't count, which was the idea behind the 2 polls.
Exactly, that is the point, there was a definite idea behind these two polls, it was organized this way for a purpose.
I dont see a problem with the polling method. Sure the second poll could of waited to be posted until this one had finished, but if the vote is yes, we go to the second poll's results, if this poll's result comes out to be no, then the second poll is not needed. The second poll states:
As I said, the issues were bundled in this way, to remove all support needed to make some minimum requirements. But sure, remake this game traditional, so we are done with it.
I don't understand this. If there is a majority of support for requiring a level of support why wouldn't that majority vote yes in this poll? I don't see how this poll removed all of its support...
Provo - you really need to think that through better.
Consider two groups - 1 wanting no minimum level, the other wanting some minimum level. If there was a single poll posted, asking what the minimum level was, and listing 1, 2, 3, 5%, Other and Abstain, which group is put at a disadvantage? That's right, the group wanting a minimum level. See, they'd be divided on WHAT that minimum level was, where the group that doesn't want a minimum level wouldn't be.
So if anything, polling in this manner was to YOUR groups benefit, and yet you're here complaining about it.
This question truly is a two parter - should there be a minimum level, and what is that minimum level. By separating into two questions, you get the best view of what people prefer AND you do it in the shortest possible time. I really don't get your complaining about this, except that you just don't like the fact that I posted it, and posted it fairly. :shrug:
It is plain and obvious for all to see, but plausible deniability is also a legitimate perspective.
Yeah, since you got the moderator, Strider and Croxis to back you guys up, I am not arguing this any further.
I voted yes for the following reasons:
Factions are meant to be a massive group of people (A church, Nobility, cult, etc.)
The ruleset was made with a focus on factions vying for power rather than individuals. Removing the limitation eliminates that aspect and thus ruins part of the purpose of the ruleset.
The only difference between Guilds and Factions is the number of supporters. This will eliminate THAT entire aspect of the ruleset.
The idea was, once again, to remove individual power and replace it with group power. You are rewarded for compromise, ideas, etc. instead of how loudly you can yell.
It is doubtful that one faction (at this point in the game) has enough people to run the game. That means they will be forced to compromise or fail miserably. Compromise is, again, the key word.
Yes, this poll was nothing but a Traditionalist countercoup, the voting pattern is obvious, so we can as well play Traditional from now on, now that they managed to ruin the Factional one. I am already installing M2TW on my harddrive, so have fun.
And you can thank your buddy Croxis for the voting, by the way.
EDIT: There is no difference between Faction and Guilds, except for that Guilds cannot go for election unless they name themselves a Faction. They basically made this game into a All-Empowered Designated Player Pool of Veterans and chosen newbees, or in more direct parlance, a traditional soup.
You place far too much emphasis on characterizing people as traditionalist or not. I'm in favor of factions, and would prefer to see a small number of powerful factions over many weak ones. But I'm not in favor of prohibiting small factions, nor in punishing them by denying them the chance to win an election by forming a coalition.
I know you are pro-Faction, but the main idea was to remove the advantage for more developed factions, so we are going to see small splinter groups for a long time, thanks to the outcome of this.
We've been here before, we've done this before, do we really need to go through exactly the same moves every other month? Maybe our concepts aren't flawed, maybe our people are.
As far as I see, I am the one at wrong here (I am the flawed one).
Provo, you need to take it easy. This one issue is not going to make or break this game. If the majority says no limitations, no limitations it is. I, personally, voted for limitations because I just think we're going to be faction-spammed, and forming coalitions sounds suspiciously like trying to get around the not being able to join multiple factions rule, but if this is what the majority wants, we will have an easier time following it.
No limitations, simply because there is no harm in allowing small factions take part, I doubt that we will end up with everyone being in small groups of factions, and anyway that could be quite good too, they could form coalitions and join together, so not only have you got the external struggle with other factions, you got internal struggle of getting your proposal enacted.
This poll is invalid. Submitting government proposals is up to the faction in control not individuals. If this poll is taken seriously it will be the end of factions, and if that happens, you can count me out.
I mean, come one, how can a poll be more misleading than this?
Shattered, what are you talking about? This is a poll seeing if factions must be a minimum size to attempt to be prime faction.
He's saying precisely what I said earlier. Rather than having a faction made up of several different people you have one person who makes up a faction. It basically screws the entire purpose of the faction ruleset up. Rather than focusing on the we it focus's on the I. That is, obviously, counter-productive to the entire system.
It will eliminate (or at least depreciate) the social changes that are needed to make the game successful. Whether that is on purpose or merely something that was not thought about I don't care to get into.
Separate names with a comma.