Buorhann

Ok, real talk. Player/Alliance votes

239 posts in this topic

If people really want to start taking these seriously, there needs to be a player driven committee (Hopefully unbias) that weeds out the crappy nominations.

Granted most topics are subjective, there's definitely some clear cut winners and losers from this years nominations.  I could go through and completely knock out about 80% of the nominations because the others have done so much more for the game and their alliance/treaties, but that would just be my perspective.

So push for this, work together as a community, and figure something out that compromises with everybody involved.

 

(Otherwise stop complaining when alliances and their leaders are pushing their members to contribute in a vote, or push yours to do the same.  A lot of you are members of spheres/blocs that can very easily organize mass voting.   It honestly doesn't take much.)

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I know what these would look like:

Best Alliance:

1: TKR

2: Rose

3: Pantheon

Repeat for every category with the occasional arrgh.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LeotheGreat said:

Haha I know what these would look like:

Best Alliance:

1: TKR

2: Rose

3: Pantheon

Repeat for every category with the occasional arrgh.

Rose 1v1'd BK on easy difficulty.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

Haha I know what these would look like:

Best Alliance:

1: TKR

2: Rose

3: Pantheon

Repeat for every category with the occasional arrgh.

 

I'd say it's good to see your pessimistic cynicism contribute, but no.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Take any representation of the awards out of the game

2. Make votes public rather than secret

3. Don't allow people to vote for their own alliance

4. Automatically nominate the top 20 alliances for everything and only take nominations for player awards and for non-top 20 alliances that people feel should be added to categories. Vote in two rounds: a preliminary round and then a round between the top three finishers (top two is probably too few) in each category from the first round. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie in the second round, hold a runoff.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/21700-readysetgo-pnw-awards-2017-nominations/&do=findComment&comment=348582

I mean, if we're really going to get lectured to about the sanctity of the process, the goofus that begged for a nomination to get around self nominating would probably not be the best one to begin the discussion.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Auctor said:

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/21700-readysetgo-pnw-awards-2017-nominations/&do=findComment&comment=348582

I mean, if we're really going to get lectured to about the sanctity of the process, the goofus that begged for a nomination to get around self nominating would probably not be the best one to begin the discussion.

lol, you have a very weird definition of begging.

"Haha, going to cite one post of him begging"

"One post"

"One"

"Yes that's begging"

 

But get it right next time, please.  I quote, "I don't really care about the votes".  I think I've stated that 4 other times too, you know, more than me "begging to get around self-nominating".

 

Also, it's doofus.  You dweeb.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone else had made a similar post whom you disliked, I'm sure you'd at least see it as special pleading. It looks desperate at the very least.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Edward I said:

1. Take any representation of the awards out of the game

2. Make votes public rather than secret

3. Don't allow people to vote for their own alliance

4. Automatically nominate the top 20 alliances for everything and only take nominations for player awards and for non-top 20 alliances that people feel should be added to categories. Vote in two rounds: a preliminary round and then a round between the top three finishers (top two is probably too few) in each category from the first round. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie in the second round, hold a runoff.

#3 will be hard to do.  Although I'd agree with it to an extent.

I'd say nominate the Top 15 Alliances, but I get your point.  Can't really disagree with it.  I was thinking along the lines of having a representative from each of those alliances to decide on the reasoning put behind the nominations.  That way it's not just favortism, that people actually have to think and put down a reason why they're nominating such person or alliance.  And if the "council", as you will, can agree to that reasoning or not.

We'd also have to set criteria on each topic for what would be used in judging nominations, so the player base as a whole can understand how to pick out their nominations.

Like for example, how can we nominate an alliance for Best Economic Policy?  Like how the hell would I know if NPO has a better economic policy than say Guardian, and whether it's nomination worthy or even vote worthy?

Or Best Player of the Year?  How are we judging that?  Those who are the most friendly?  Those who are the funniest? etc.

 

That's why in it's current state, the Alliance/Player votes have always been a lulzy thing to me and why I don't really care much for them.   However, it's obvious that players were hoping this year would be different.  Hence this thread to open up discussion on how to "fix" or make it "better" for next year.

 

1 minute ago, Auctor said:

If anyone else had made a similar post whom you disliked, I'm sure you'd at least see it as special pleading. It looks desperate at the very least.

Go through the history of the voting threads and check yourself, you won't find any.  So no, you're wrong, and shut the !@#$ up.  Go shit on the Player/Alliance vote threads.  This is meant for constructive discussion.  Not you and your petty jabs at trying to be witty.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for being IC.

It's sad that I actually understood that.  But once again, for the millionth time, I care less about the current votes.  We've done it in the past.  It's expected.   People can counter it by getting their own to vote, whatever.

 

Just out of curiosity - why are IQsphere aligned people shitting on this thread except one person who actually was constructive?  That's just a coincidence, right?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this isn't a constructive thread, this is a thread wherein you express your hurt feelings for not being as popular as you feel entitled to be recognized as being.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Auctor said:

Because this isn't a constructive thread, this is a thread wherein you express your hurt feelings for not being as popular as you feel entitled to be recognized as being.

Uh, what?  No?  Are you trying to project something onto me or about me?

What am I hurt about exactly?  Did I complain about the votes somewhere?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

#3 will be hard to do.  Although I'd agree with it to an extent.

The only reason I didn't also propose prohibiting votes for alliances you're treatied to is that it would force spheres to vote only for rival spheres, which would be silly.

18 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'd say nominate the Top 15 Alliances, but I get your point.  Can't really disagree with it.  I was thinking along the lines of having a representative from each of those alliances to decide on the reasoning put behind the nominations.  That way it's not just favortism, that people actually have to think and put down a reason why they're nominating such person or alliance.  And if the "council", as you will, can agree to that reasoning or not.

You're never going to get objectivity no matter how you do it. This would be exclusive at best and opaque at worst.

18 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

We'd also have to set criteria on each topic for what would be used in judging nominations, so the player base as a whole can understand how to pick out their nominations.

Like for example, how can we nominate an alliance for Best Economic Policy?  Like how the hell would I know if NPO has a better economic policy than say Guardian, and whether it's nomination worthy or even vote worthy?

Or Best Player of the Year?  How are we judging that?  Those who are the most friendly?  Those who are the funniest? etc.

 

That's why in it's current state, the Alliance/Player votes have always been a lulzy thing to me and why I don't really care much for them.   However, it's obvious that players were hoping this year would be different.  Hence this thread to open up discussion on how to "fix" or make it "better" for next year.

You'll never get a consensus definition on most of these categories mean and you'll certainly never be able to force people to abide by one when voting. If your goal is for this whole process to focus more on the thought that goes into nominations and less on the voting, then just get rid of the voting. I actually enjoyed reading the nomination thread.  The posts that people put effort into were often well-written and made sense.

If you're going for something approaching objectivity, especially for categories that lend themselves to quantitative comparisons, then have someone start a thread that synthesizes Shadow's alliance rankings thread and whatever war stats threads already exist. Let people discuss.

 

Voting to choose winners is inherently competitive and adding in-game representations of awards only further incentivizes competitive behavior.  If you want awards to be as fair and transparent as possible, refer to my first post.  If you want them to make people feel good or to vaguely represent the actual state of alliances and the game, then get rid of voting and make them into a discussion with no formal process for choosing winners.

Edited by Edward I
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Yeah, it would be silly.  Hence why I stated that would be a hard thing to really nail down.

2) I'd lean more on the exclusivity, but I'd say it'd be way better than having 20+ nominations for a single topic.  And at least every top alliance would have a rep to make a statement, but again that could further divisiveness (Which in the end wouldn't be too terrible, now would it?)

3) I'd argue that you could very easily get a consensus definition.  If anything, it may change the topic of the title to fit around the criteria of judging.  Instead of Best Economic Policy, could be Best Economic Growth (As in, the criteria would be set on an alliance that had stable growth or managed to grow despite setbacks throughout the year, etc).

 

I also agree that reading the reasons people put down for nominations is much more entertaining than the voting itself.  I also wouldn't mind the community shifting from a popularity vote to more of a "End of the Year" comments thread on what they liked about who or what alliance.  Something more on the positive side.

For example, while I could very easily say negative things about IQsphere aligned alliances, I could also say some very positive meaningful stuff.  Like with NPO, you guys were thrusted into the villain role due to that other game that will not be named when you first arrived here, and despite all the harassment, war losses, and trouble - you guys stuck through with it and kept on trucking, making big changes this year (Like pulling BK, CS, Zodiac from those who made you their villain).

 

So yeah, I agree with your last statement.  It would also fit into the whole "holiday spirit".

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

2) I'd lean more on the exclusivity, but I'd say it'd be way better than having 20+ nominations for a single topic.  And at least every top alliance would have a rep to make a statement, but again that could further divisiveness (Which in the end wouldn't be too terrible, now would it?)

Well, yeah because the whole point is to agree upon a set of nominations :P

6 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

3) I'd argue that you could very easily get a consensus definition.  If anything, it may change the topic of the title to fit around the criteria of judging.  Instead of Best Economic Policy, could be Best Economic Growth (As in, the criteria would be set on an alliance that had stable growth or managed to grow despite setbacks throughout the year, etc).

But what is good economic growth? You yourself publicly argued with Roquentin over how quickly NPO should be adding new cities.

Obviously you could do something straightforward like defining growth in terms of raw score increases, but not all score increases are created equal. If my alliance recruits new players who might quit or decides that building 5k infra in one city per nation is a good idea, should we get as much credit as an alliance that added an equal amount of score in new cities and projects?

 

But you're right, generally we do agree. Next year make a group with at least one person from every major sphere and have them put together a few op-ed style arguments on the state of the game and an alliance stats report to use as conversation starters. What Woot wrote in the Orbis Oracle when he was convinced IQ and EMC were about to start a war a few months ago would be a decent model.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inre Economic Growth:  Sure, I argue about it, but I'm also not everybody here.  Others may value that greatly or view the importance of that vastly differently than I (Which as you've seen from the arguments I've participated in).

I won't lie, if I ran the voting, I'd eliminate "Best Economic Policy".  It's the most worthless one in my opinion, but again, that's just my opinion and I recognize that.

As for the question, that's the whole purpose of the council and the voting.  The council can decide whether "adding nations in" is good enough to be nominated.  In some cases, it could be a valid reason (An alliance that is successful with recruiting) to compete against someone who grows (An alliance that buys cities/infra).  Then the people vote which they care more about.

For example:  I could nominate Roz Wei and have my reason as, "Roz Wei managed to recruit 21 players, most of which remained for 9 months of the year or longer.  Through the recruiting those nations contributed more income which provided much needed assistance to catch the lower tier members up.  They also went through 2 wars at which they recovered through both quickly due to the excess income due to previous growth and recruitment."

You in turn could nominate NPO and state, "NPO's policy is to equally distribute taxes to all nations in the alliance with 100% taxes.  We have 105 members at which we're growing each of them together to maintain tier cohesion.  Through this policy we've managed to quickly rebuild nations that needed it the most to those that needed it the least, which allowed us to continue maintaining our overall plan."

 

Then the community will see both alliances put up, with a brief summary of what was the criteria and possibly a brief summary of why these alliances were put up for vote, and allow the community to say which they liked best with their votes.

I mean, what would be more impressive?  Growing an alliance that benefited from recruiting 21 more members or an alliance that maintained tier cohesion with 105 members and still slowly growing?  Both have valid points and reasons, and everybody would know WHY those alliances are put up for the vote.

Surely it won't stop popularity voting, but it'd help give purpose.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the famous Auctor comics. Feels nostalgic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also feel like there needs to be something that gives a little more focus on things that happen at the beginning of the year. I find that these votes become very much focused on what has happened in the past 4-6 months purely because it is more fresh it people's minds.

Removing the ability to vote for your alliance doesn't change much imo, just means allies will vote for each other instead etc.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a committee to whittle the nominations down to a reasonable number, eg. 5.

Then have the nominations scored 1-5 worst nomination to best.

While it won't eliminate the alliance bias on the high scores, the 2ndry places would even it out some, and give more objectivity.

Another idea would be one rep from each alliance gives nominations, and that alliances scores. Example Eurovision style voting 

Edited by Carter Burke
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Public votes

2. Motivation in each category

3. You can abstain from max 2 categories

4. You can vote only if you played the full year

5. Valid vote only from players with at least 10 forum posts

6. Alliance leaders select 5-8 alliances/players for each category with at least one option from IQ, one from EMC, and one from paperless or semi paperless

Let's do this

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s going to be a new vote, don’t worry about it. I talked to Bezzers and he said he’s alright with it. I’m also pushing for the voters to be public so if another vote trolling happens, certain votes can be nullified, and the rightful people will get their awards.

 

It should be within the next few days that the new polls are opened

-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zeebrus said:

There’s going to be a new vote, don’t worry about it. I talked to Bezzers and he said he’s alright with it. I’m also pushing for the voters to be public so if another vote trolling happens, certain votes can be nullified, and the rightful people will get their awards.

 

It should be within the next few days that the new polls are opened

So will my vote be nullified if I disagree with Bezzers' opinions? I'm so excited to see this new and improved process and the better results it will surely produce.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now