PDA

View Full Version : Vote #1: Poll Choice Limits



Dark Pulse
April 3rd, 2011, 09:12 AM
The first vote, is, fittingly, on votes.

There's been a bit of a debate over the last few days if the current limit of 10 choices to a poll is enough. I feel it is, and I do believe it will be for MOST cases; however, as I am on the fence on this situation, and I want the forums to have a little more of a community voice, I'm putting it up for you guys to decide.

So, simply put... do you think the vote choice limit should be changed, and if so, what to?

Note that you all get a week from this post to vote. So it's up to you folks to do your part!

Kotonoha
April 3rd, 2011, 09:24 AM
10 is most definitely too few.

Raise it to 20? 25?

Dark Pulse
April 3rd, 2011, 09:29 AM
Well, that's what the whole point of this thread (and vote) is about. When we have a clear community consensus, that's what I'll go with.

Kotonoha
April 3rd, 2011, 09:32 AM
That was me giving my opinion which I think is what you were asking for, so...

Dark Pulse
April 3rd, 2011, 09:40 AM
So then pick 20 or 25, and vote for it.

The poll IS at the top of the topic, isn't it?

Kotonoha
April 3rd, 2011, 09:44 AM
I'm waiting to see what other people think before making a (non-retractable?) vote. Don't be so pushy. :P

Erlkonig
April 3rd, 2011, 09:45 AM
I voted for 30. It should be enough to make a large poll like "What's your favorite Dead Apostle Ancestor", and anything longer than that must be able to be shortened.

Dark Pulse
April 3rd, 2011, 10:02 AM
I'm waiting to see what other people think before making a (non-retractable?) vote. Don't be so pushy. :PYeah... looking into this, it's definitely not something you can do in stock vBulletin 4. Someone would need to make a mod for it.

I'll look for one soon.

Certis Baliano
April 3rd, 2011, 10:21 AM
I voted for 30 as well. It seems reasonable enough.

Though, I don't really see the need to limit it at all, unless being able to create unlimited poll options is a gateway for crashing the forum or something.

Rockxas
April 3rd, 2011, 10:26 AM
Hmm, 30 sounds reasonable but I'm voting for 40 just in case we ever need that many, polls that involve the entirety of the Nasuverse could have as many options if it's something like "favorite female character".

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 10:40 AM
Yeah, I was gonna go with 20/25 as I mentioned in the other thread but 30 seems better (as if we include Extra Servants in the 'Favorite Servant' thread we'd betting at the very least 27 or 28 different Servants). But I'm gonna hold out to look at other peoples votes. But yeah, I don't like for things to be so close to the limit so I'd rather do something like rockxas says and do 40. And, as he said, there are some threads that can reach that limit quite easily (if we decide not to do the yearly tourney of favorite characters but do one for all time).

Tobias
April 3rd, 2011, 10:46 AM
I am going with 20

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 10:48 AM
Hmm, so, what will you do if, for example, 5 people vote for 10, 4 people vote for 45 and 4 vote for 50? Will you leave it at 10 on the grounds that that was the "majority" vote, or will you increase it on the basis that most people clearly wanted it increased?

Basically, I will vote for whatever the highest number that can win is, because I see no good reason to limit it. If people don't like polls with 40 options, then they don't have to vote in it....

terraablaze
April 3rd, 2011, 11:01 AM
@mike
Isn't that the case with every poll though?

@OP
Is there any reason to leave it at 10? Are we saving bandwidth or something?

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 11:06 AM
From what I understand he thinks 35 choice polls might intimidate people and might prevent more damaging spam (for instance if someone kept making HUGE polls with tons of text and all kinds of shit in an attempt to crash your browser or something).

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 11:19 AM
@mike
Isn't that the case with every poll though?

Yes, of course it is. Indeed, it's the same with our electoral system....

But, that doesn't make it a good way of deciding. It seems silly to me that, if there is a clear consensus to increase it (e.g. 10 getting only 20% of the vote) it should stay the same just because 10 got a majority.


@OP
Is there any reason to leave it at 10? Are we saving bandwidth or something?

No, not really.


From what I understand he think 35 choice polls might intimidate people and might prevent more damaging spam (for instance if someone kept making HUGE polls with tons of text and all kinds of shit in an attempt to crash your browser or something).

Well, the first is that person's problem, really (and can be dealt with by them either complaining in the thread or just not voting), and the second seems a) highly unlikely and b) easily fixable. Limiting the number of poll options to 10 (thereby causing certain people a lot of problems) just because one or two might get "intimidated" by more options seems totally absurd to me.

terraablaze
April 3rd, 2011, 11:43 AM
Guess I vote 30 in case we ever do that Favorite Servant deal

DragoZERO
April 3rd, 2011, 11:47 AM
I voted for 20.

Optimus
April 3rd, 2011, 11:54 AM
I voted for 35, because although there are some huge polls, in my opinion more options than that can be included on the "other" option.

Lavender
April 3rd, 2011, 11:57 AM
Why is there even a limit? What is the big deal?

Just let people make their own polls with as many options as they prefer. It's not like the forums are going to come crashing down as a result.

Honestly, this seems pretty unnecessary to me.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 12:11 PM
Well, yeah, that's my view as well (although there probably has to be some (very high) limit, for reasons of practicality, and to prevent spammers making a 10000-item poll which breaks the forum). It's not like allowing 50 options in a poll means that people have to use all those options, after all....

Ruca_Milda
April 3rd, 2011, 12:51 PM
Tbh I think limits a-

Lav and Mike y snipe ;_;

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 02:03 PM
Honestly, I oppose it just cause when mike asked about it, he was ridiculously rude and sounded like an ingrate.

So 20 (the lowest number that seems to actually be getting support).

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 02:06 PM
Right, so just because I actually expressed my opinion and pointed out that DP's arguments were rubbish, you're going to saddle the entire forum with a lower number of entries in a poll than you truly think is necessary?

Christ, you're pathetic....

Erlkonig
April 3rd, 2011, 02:07 PM
EVERYONE TO THE SHELTER!

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 02:10 PM
Pretty much.

The working deserves respect, and everything you go knocking on his door, it's like the request of a spoiled child.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 02:14 PM
OK, what the fuck are you talking about?

It takes about ten seconds (I would assume) to change it, and it's not like I was particularly "disrespectful" when I originally asked in any case. Just because I don't kow-tow to people just because they have a cyan name instead of a blue one, or start saying "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" like you seem to think we should, that doesn't mean I'm being "ungrateful".

And, honestly, I think that your "spoiler child" metaphor says a lot more about you and your tendancy to see authority as absolute and unquestionable than it does about my actions. No-one else is complaining....

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 02:17 PM
Well, don't mind me. I'll just enjoy the irony that the motion might defeat itself due to too many choices causing vote splitting.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 02:21 PM
Well, yeah, I noticed that, hence why I asked DP how he intended to handle such a situation, and why I've not actually voted yet....

There's a clear consensus for increasing the size, though, so I'm afraid that you're out of luck if you think it's going to stay at 10 just because we can't agree on a specific number (I would hope, anyway...). So, I'm just going to sit back and laugh at the fact that your pathetic attempt to put a personal grudge against me over what you think is best for the forum as a whole is ultimately doomed to failure. 30 is enough for me in any case, because I can't honestly think of any situation where we would really need a poll of more than 30 options that couldn't be handled with an "other" option (even 20 would probably be OK), even if I support a higher number out of general principle (there's no reason not to set it higher, IMO), and given the current voting intentions mentioned by various people I would imagine that it's not likely to be any less than 30 in the end....

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 02:22 PM
Well, it's not like 10 is getting any votes.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 02:27 PM
Well, that's why I voted 20. Not like I have any sort of personal qualms about it increasing.

willyvereb
April 3rd, 2011, 02:27 PM
25-30 choices are damn fine. Any more and it's going to be really troublesome to follow.

RacingeR
April 3rd, 2011, 02:52 PM
Voted for 30, as it seems to be reasonable enough.

@Mike: I think that Dark Pulse mentioned earlier in the thread that they'll need to write a mod to increase the limit or something like that, so it is not just a couple of seconds. Just saying.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 02:58 PM
No, he needs a mod to add the ability to retract votes (which is why I'm not pressing him about that, even though it would be very useful). I'm pretty sure that increasing the poll size is merely a matter of changing some number in the board settings.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 03:06 PM
Well, the issue was you never actually gave him a number to put there. So he just joked around, unwilling to make some arbitrary decision on behalf of everyone.

Which is what this poll's useful for, arguably.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 03:11 PM
Well, the issue was you never actually gave him a number to put there. So he just joked around, unwilling to make some arbitrary decision on behalf of everyone.

Well, honestly I would just use an arbitrarily large number that no-one is ever going to hit except in a deliberate attempt to break the forum, hence why I never suggested anything. I don't really see any fundamental reason to have a limit at all. The only reason is a practical one (to prevent polls breaking the forum), and IMO that is something that can only be really determined by DP (provided it's larger than anything we're likely to ever hit).

Also, I just asked if he could and would do it. Actually deciding what to raise it to was another matter entirely. However, he seemed rather reluctant to do it, and the arguments he gave for not doing so seemed rather weak to me, hence why I argued with him on that matter.


Which is what this poll's useful for, arguably.

Well, yes, fair enough, and I'm not criticising him for starting a poll on the topic. My issue is with you deciding to vote based on a petty grudge rather than on what makes sense.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 03:20 PM
I'm pretty sure he was fine with increasing it.


I could certainly up the number of maximum choices... but really, what sort of practical maximum would it be?


I dunno, something that actually allows us to vote on all the options in question, rather than limiting us so ridiculously? I mean, 10 choices isn't anything like enough for a "favourite character" poll or even for the polls Lantz is doing.


:p


There is no good reason why it should be limited to only 10 options in a poll, and I can't imagine that it's hard to change, so why are you so resistant to doing so? Just because that's the "default" setting, it doesn't mean that it's the best setting.

Cruor tried to be helpful, and suggested 20 as a number too, but you shot him down, ultimately.

Then the rest was just me bickering with you, and then Dark Pulse made this thread.

Milbunk
April 3rd, 2011, 03:20 PM
I'm gonna vote for 30.

Erlkonig
April 3rd, 2011, 04:01 PM
EVERYONE TO THE SHELTER!

Fucking called it!

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 04:25 PM
I'm pretty sure he was fine with increasing it.

Well, he seemed somewhat reluctant. And, more importantly, he was putting forward arguments for not doing so, which is what I was arguing against. Whether he truly believes those arguments doesn't really matter, he was still making them....


Cruor tried to be helpful, and suggested 20 as a number too, but you shot him down, ultimately.

Erm, when did I shoot him down?


Then the rest was just me bickering with you, and then Dark Pulse made this thread.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, yes. So, what's your point?

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 05:05 PM
Dark Pulse responded once, and ended it with a :P smiley. I'm not sure he was really trying to dissuade you, just being silly since you never actually answered his first question, other than "Well, I dunno, I just know I want MORE."

As for Cruor thing, I must've imagined it.

DP made a single argument, and it was sort of hand wavy and more in the interest of actually like, discussing to find the purpose of the change, and where it should be set to. He never said no to the idea, he just resisted implementing it without any actual dialogue or consideration of how.

And then you start speaking about him like some despot while you were talking to me. That's all, really. Dark Pulse's apparent reluctance to increase it is just your red-eye-raged delusion.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 05:09 PM
I wasn't talking about him as if he was a "despot", I was arguing with you, because the point you raised was entirely irrelevant. There's no reason why it shouldn't be increased just because there are, in some circumstances, hacks you can use to get around the issue.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 05:38 PM
Sorry, I just like playing Devil's Advocate, since y'know, it seemed like no one was speaking up in the interest deciding how much is enough, or if there's too much.

And still, you never really gave a compelling reason why the polls you're lobbying for aren't more than just a trinket for some passing entertainment, than something that's like, so fundamentally necessary that it requires such an aggressive appeal.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 05:41 PM
Well, is anything on this forum "fundamentally necessary"? Hell, is the forum itself really "fundamentally necessary"? Is the universe going to cease to exist if we can't discuss the Nasuverse?

The specific case I was actually asking on behalf of was actually a poll that Lantz is doing, to decide which route to write next (and there are more than 10 possibilites). So, he actually needs more than 10 options in the poll, and unlike with "best character" polls there isn't really a way around that.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 05:43 PM
I dunno, maybe it's the way you overuse italics, but to me you always sound like you're arguing for some fundamental human right.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 05:44 PM
Well, I am rather argumentative, highly opinionated and don't like authority much, so....

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 05:48 PM
Well, I wouldn't sweat it.

All in all, I don't actually mind seeing the vote cap go up, and people seem pretty comfortable with either 20 or 30, most likely 30.

I think it'd just be helpful if you were more patient with Dark Pulse. If he seems to be unnecessarily dragging his feet to you, I think that's just him being reluctant to tinker so much on the executive level, or just a desire to do it right the first time.

Which isn't surprising, I think? The last time he took the initiative on something, was the mod/reputation idea, and that was met with a pretty vocal and large opposition, so y'know.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 05:53 PM
Well, it looks like it's going to end up being 30. And, whilst I'd rather it be higher, personally, I can't see there being any situation where it's likely to matter, because even the broadest poll isn't likely to have more than 30 options in it that couldn't be covered by a generic "other" option, so that's acceptable to me (20 I could live with too, even if it's a little on the low side).

As for DP, I don't think I was being anything like as aggressive as you seem to claim. My comments were just me pointing out that the existing number was (IMO) far too low in my usual manner. I wasn't trying to attack him or insult him.

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 06:01 PM
Mike argues to change rules if they seem to limit users in anyway. Whether it affects him or not. If it affects him he's even more adamant. I remember one time he got in an argument with F1 over the rules of a Fanfiction contest F1 was holding.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 06:03 PM
Mike argues to change rules if they seem to limit users in anyway. Whether it affects him or not. If it affects him he's even more adamant. I remember one time he got in an argument with F1 over the rules of a Fanfiction contest F1 was holding.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, actually. I despise arbitrary limitations, even if they don't directly affect me (and even if they're broadly popular, because tyranny by majority is still a tyranny...).

I mean, I usually won't even stand for it from the government (I just take no fucking notice of their bullshit rules), so the likelihood of me just accepting such rules when they're laid down by a forum admin or contest runner is practically nil....

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 06:06 PM
I actually think "Other" options (such as the over nine-thousand option in this poll) to be kind of degenerate.

But it doesn't really matter. I'm just a stubborn grump who's stuck on trying to maximize the accuracy and utility in polling, lol. And by far the most useful polls are binary (votes can't be split, all votes are useful).

Like, if I had done this poll, I'd probably have started with the binary question of "Should polls have a cap on the number of choices that the author can insert?" or something.

Of course, that's if you wanted to go full democracy and literally hand the entire decision out to the masses, regardless of whether or not they have an informed opinion on the idea or not.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 06:14 PM
I actually think "Other" options (such as the over nine-thousand option in this poll) to be kind of degenerate.

Well, it depends what you're doing. In some cases, "other" options are very useful.


But it doesn't really matter. I'm just a stubborn grump who's stuck on trying to maximize the accuracy and utility in polling, lol. And by far the most useful polls are binary (votes can't be split, all votes are useful).

Well, that depends on what you're trying to find out. If you want to find out the most popular character then, yes, by far the best method of doing so is to have a series of one-on-one matches (I would actually like to see some such tournament at some point, but it's hard to organise it without cluttering up the board horribly). However, if you want to ask who is everyone's favourite character, or if you want to make a decision between a large number of unrelated possibilities, then you need the possibility to vote for more than one at a time.


Like, if I had done this poll, I'd probably have started with the binary question of "Should polls have a cap on the number of choices that the author can insert?" or something.

The problem is that a) I would guess that it is neither possible (due to the workings of the software) or adviseable to remove the cap entirely (because someone could then create a poll with a million choices and break the forum) and b) you'd never get an answer at that rate. I would agree that, for the question at hand, giving many options and then picking the one with the most votes isn't the best way to do it (because, in general, someone who votes for 50 would clearly rather 30 than 20, and yet if the vote is split enough 20 could win despite being clearly disfavoured by the majority of voters), but it's hard to see how he could have organised this better and still got a decision this side of Christmas....


Of course, that's if you wanted to go full democracy and literally hand the entire decision out to the masses, regardless of whether or not they have an informed opinion on the idea or not.

Well, that's another debate entirely, of course....

SeiKeo
April 3rd, 2011, 06:17 PM
I think we should just not get so worked up over the number of poll choices.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 06:21 PM
Yeah, I don't believe there's a way to get it to literally no cap, but then the solution would be to put it to as high as it can go. And you are right about multiple choices where each option is distinct enough to make vote splitting a non-issue.
Like, if people had said yes to the cap, I'd probably ask with options like:
0~10
10~100
100~1000
1000~10000
10000~100000

At which point, it probably goes beyond what the forum can handle, and doing it by powers would get people's sense of what's actually necessary pretty definitively. Whereas a poll with a large number of options, going at linear increments of 5 is vaguely problematic, from the vote splitting angle.

And yeah, round robin 1v1 is the best for deciding what something is best liked across a number of people. That touhou app where it put all touhou characters systematically into 1v1 matches (no repeats) to come up with a definitive list of your favourite characters. It's not even round robin, it just cycled you through every possible match up in the most efficient way.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 06:29 PM
Yeah, I don't believe there's a way to get it to literally no cap, but then the solution would be to put it to as high as it can go. And you are right about multiple choices where each option is distinct enough to make vote splitting a non-issue.

Well, vote-splitting is always an issue, but sometimes it's an unavoidable one (at least within the constraints of the existing forum software). A good example is if you were to hold an election. The ideal way to do that would be for each voter to rank every candidate and then apply an algorithm (e.g. the Concordat method, which is basically what you're advocating here) to decide who wins, but because of the way the forum software works that simply cannot be done, so the only way to vote for something in an individual thread is by the First Past the Post System. The only other option would be to make a poll for each pairing and pair them off one-on-one, but that is simply too unwieldy, and would clutter up the forum too much.


Like, if people had said yes to the cap, I'd probably ask with options like:
0~10
10~100
100~1000
1000~10000
10000~100000

At which point, it probably goes beyond what the forum can handle, and doing it by powers would get people's sense of what's actually necessary pretty definitively. Whereas a poll with a large number of options, going at linear increments of 5 is vaguely problematic, from the vote splitting angle.

Well, honestly, there's no point in going beyond 100, and anything below 10 would just be stupid, so your idea would just add a redundant level of voting that takes up more time without providing any useful information.


And yeah, round robin 1v1 is the best for deciding what something is best liked across a number of people. That touhou app where it put all touhou characters systematically into 1v1 matches (no repeats) to come up with a definitive list of your favourite characters. It's not even round robin, it just cycled you through every possible match up in the most efficient way.

Well, yeah, I agree with that entirely, but the problem is that it's pretty hard to organise such a tournament on a forum like this. It simply takes up too much space.

Also, note that, with a large group of people, to find a definitive order you actually need to play all the matches, because it is possible that you could have e.g. Sakura beats Saber, Saber beats Rin and Rin beats Sakura.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 07:38 PM
I actually prefer first-past-the-post for politics, exactly because it's inaccurate, with a heavy bias towards moderates and greatly disenfranchising radical elements. *shrug*

As for 100 being the highest logical value, that's simply your opinion, and you've basically shown how useful that model is, since you can't even fathom voting for the other options. ^_~ Because in my opinion, if you're fine with 10, then 50's not really that dramatic of an increase. If you can tolerate 200, I don't see how 700 should be an issue. But if you're advocating 40, then 400 is definitely outside what you'd advocate. Basically, voting determinism isn't diluted with cases where "Well, I like this option, but this other option is almost just as good!", and you can resolve that issue without multiple round voting.

It just seems redundant to you because the categorization works.

As for the last note, if people were voting consistently, that should be impossible, technically. Of course, that assumes 100% voter turn out, which is... lol. Which is why round robin becomes useful (and even lets you do 1v1v1 free for all for increased speed without a big issue). Then you do 1v1 or small elimination brackets to sort out the point ties.

And yeah, such things are beyond the scope of forums usually. But you know, who'd run them here in the first place?

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 07:46 PM
How'd you two go from insulting each other to a discussion like this?

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 07:48 PM
I actually prefer first-past-the-post for politics, exactly because it's inaccurate, with a heavy bias towards moderates and greatly disenfranchising radical elements. *shrug*

Actually, that's not true. FPTP actually makes it more likely for radical elements to win (in a single-winner election), simply because of the issue of vote-splitting. If you have two central candidates and one radical one, then the radical one might win due to the central ones splitting the vote.


As for 100 being the highest logical value, that's simply your opinion, and you've basically shown how useful that model is, since you can't even fathom voting for the other options. ^_~ Because in my opinion, if you're fine with 10, then 50's not really that dramatic of an increase. If you can tolerate 200, I don't see how 700 should be an issue. But if you're advocating 40, then 400 is definitely outside what you'd advocate. Basically, voting determinism isn't diluted with cases where "Well, I like this option, but this other option is almost just as good!", and you can resolve that issue without multiple round voting.

Erm, what? I'm pretty sure that it's not that simple....

For instance, I would be fine with 50, but 10 is far too low for me.


It just seems redundant to you because the categorization works.

Well, the point I'm making is that, in this case, at least, the plausible set of values where it actually matters is small enough that dividing the options up into powers of ten is not worthwhile. I mean, no-one is going to advocate only 1 possible option, and anything over 100 is simply never going to be used.


As for the last note, if people were voting consistently, that should be impossible, technically. Of course, that assumes 100% voter turn out, which is... lol. Which is why round robin becomes useful (and even lets you do 1v1v1 free for all for increased speed without a big issue). Then you do 1v1 or small elimination brackets to sort out the point ties.

Actually, that's simply not true. It's a well-known paradox of voting. Just because every individual has a unique ranking, the group as a whole does not have to have one.

Suppose, for example, that you have 1 person that ranks the characters A > B > C, 1 that ranks them B > C > A and 1 that ranks them C > A > B. Then, A will beat B 2 - 1, B will beat C 2 - 1 and C will beat A 2 - 1. So, you end up with a loop.


And yeah, such things are beyond the scope of forums usually. But you know, who'd run them here in the first place?

Well, there aren't many other places you could run them, because most other fora are too heavily infested by anime-only fans to give an accurate picture of which is the "favourite" character for genuine TM game fans.

SeiKeo
April 3rd, 2011, 07:54 PM
Actually, that's not true. FPTP actually makes it more likely for radical elements to win (in a single-winner election), simply because of the issue of vote-splitting. If you have two central candidates and one radical one, then the radical one might win due to the central ones splitting the vote.

But FPTP reduces radical representation in parliamentary or congressional elections. People like the Pirate Party (and less constructive parties) can win seats because of non-FPTP systems. And in an open system where anybody can run for office, the national elections inevitably gravitate towards two centerist parties.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 07:56 PM
But FPTP reduces radical representation in parliamentary or congressional elections. People like the Pirate Party (and less constructive parties) can win seats because of non-FPTP systems. And in an open system where anybody can run for office, the national elections inevitably gravitate towards two centerist parties.

Well, it does relative to proportional systems, yes (not that that's a good thing, mind, because it allows a minority to dictate to the majority with little or no actual oversight). But, proportional systems don't exactly work when you can only have one winner....

In terms of single-winner elections, FPTP actually gives extremist candidates the best chance of winning, due to the fact that you only need to gain a plurality of votes, rather than an absolute majority. Hence why someone like Bush could end up as president of the US (and even Palin might have a shot, if Obama fucks up badly enough, simply because there's no alternative).

Also, no, FPTP doesn't necessarily gravitate towards two centrist parties (because no-one will dare challenge any of the major parties, so they can basically do whatever the fuck they like, and pander to corporate interests), and in so far as it does that simply leads to the electorate having no actual choice about how the country should be run.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 08:10 PM
Except, aren't the presidential elections pretty much organized to be a binary vote at the end? It's not completely directly correlated, since it's done through those state whatevers, but Bush certainly wasn't some fringe element. When it's 1v1, plurality is a majority.

I mean, what, Bush got like, 50% or 51% of the votes? Obama got like 53% of the votes or something. Not numbers I really keep track of closely. The problem with America right now is largely that the country is so split on the issue of which variant they want, really. It's the problem of how intensely bipartisan the nation is, rather than an extremist winning despite two more popular, centrist candidates who are splitting votes.

SeiKeo
April 3rd, 2011, 08:14 PM
Well, it does relative to proportional systems, yes (not that that's a good thing, mind, because it allows a minority to dictate to the majority with little or no actual oversight). But, proportional systems don't exactly work when you can only have one winner....

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you, but how does reducing radical representation allow the minority do dictate terms?


In terms of single-winner elections, FPTP actually gives extremist candidates the best chance of winning, due to the fact that you only need to gain a plurality of votes, rather than an absolute majority. Hence why someone like Bush could end up as president of the US (and even Palin might have a shot, if Obama fucks up badly enough, simply because there's no alternative).

Bush was more an outcome of the US's 250 year old electoral structure. If the US used a national, direct FPTP system, that wouldn't have happened.


Also, no, FPTP doesn't necessarily gravitate towards two centrist parties (because no-one will dare challenge any of the major parties, so they can basically do whatever the fuck they like, and pander to corporate interests), and in so far as it does that simply leads to the electorate having no actual choice about how the country should be run.

Yes it does. Their position on the political spectrum may be debatable, but FPTP leads to two large parties and however many irrelevant parties.

@Jase: The weird thing was that Bush actually lost the popular vote, but the US system determines the winner by essentially assigning points to the states, and whoever wins the most points wins. Bush had more valuable states, but lost the national popular vote. And yeah, despite all the debate, most American presidents aren't really that different, but the parties' tone is largely determined by the less centrist elements because of the nature of primary voting and Gerrymandering.

Also, do you want to make another thread for this?

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 08:17 PM
Except, aren't the presidential elections pretty much organized to be a binary vote at the end? It's not completely directly correlated, since it's done through those state whatevers, but Bush certainly wasn't some fringe element. When it's 1v1, plurality is a majority.

Yeah, but it's organised in that way because, if anyone else (who might be more popular) were to stand against either of the major candidates, they would essentially ensure a win for the candidate they were furthest from, by splitting the vote from their side of the political spectrum.

I mean, if there were a choice between, for example, Bush and McCain in 2000 or 2004, McCain would likely have won (especially in 2000). But, if he had stood against Bush in 2000, given the US FPTP system, then the effect would almost certainly have been to hand the election to Gore. Similarly, if the Republicans ran a die-hard KKK member and the Democrats ran an anarchist hippy, then one of them would end up as president (probably, anyway, although in that case a third-party candidate might well take a shot and actually win...), even though the vast majority of the electorate would probably prefer someone in between.


I mean, what, Bush got like, 50% or 51% of the votes? Obama got like 53% of the votes or something. Not numbers I really keep track of closely. The problem with America right now is largely that the country is so split on the issue of which variant they want, really. It's the problem of how intensely bipartisan the nation is, rather than an extremist winning despite two more popular, centrist candidates who are splitting votes.

The problem is that you're discounting the effect of the system on the candidates themselves. In a non-FPTP system, there might have been an alternative (less extreme) Republican candidate who would have stood against Bush, and in a straight fight such a candidate would win, because all the Democrats would likely have backed him and at least some Republicans would have.


Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you, but how does reducing radical representation allow the minority do dictate terms?

Because at the moment a party can win a majority of the seats with only 30% of the vote (and, potentially, substantially less true support), thereby being able to dictate their rules to the majority which did not vote for them. It doesn't happen in the US, because it's a strict two-party system with large regional divides, but it happens a lot in this country, where we have a substantial third party and smaller, less partisan (in some cases) constituencies.


Bush was more an outcome of the US's 250 year old electoral structure. If the US used a national, direct FPTP system, that wouldn't have happened.

Well, as it happens he lost the popular vote in 2000, yes, but he could very easily have won it, and my argument would still apply.


Yes it does. Their position on the political spectrum may be debatable, but FPTP leads to two large parties and however many irrelevant parties.

I'm not disputing that it (generally) leads to two large parties, just that they're not always centrist.


@Jase: The weird thing was that Bush actually lost the popular vote, but the US system determines the winner by essentially assigning points to the states, and whoever wins the most points wins. Bush had more valuable states, but lost the national popular vote.

Yeah, but that doesn't invalidate my basic argument.


Also, do you want to make another thread for this?

Well, it might be wise....

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 08:26 PM
Yeah, I think we sidetracked significantly enough now that we'd have to make a new thread, lol.

SeiKeo
April 3rd, 2011, 08:28 PM
New thread is here: http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/331-Voting-Systems-which-ones-are-better?p=32539

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 08:31 PM
Yeah, I think we sidetracked significantly enough now that we'd have to make a new thread, lol.

You should see GD. It's even worse then this.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 08:33 PM
Yeah, I know. But I figure a forum that was made for the expressed purpose of polling the forum to make decisions about the forum, should probably have a higher standard w

Hyarion
April 3rd, 2011, 08:35 PM
And then it turns out that it was actually completely relevant all along, and they were discussing the merits of applying an electoral system to BL polls.

Vat a tweest.

Erlkonig
April 3rd, 2011, 08:40 PM
>Sakura

*Trollface*

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 08:40 PM
And then it turns out that it was actually completely relevant all along, and they were discussing the merits of applying an electoral system to BL polls.

Vat a tweest.

Well, actually....

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 08:40 PM
Geh. Looks like we're taking 30.

I was gonna vote 35 or 40 as then we at least have some leg room for most threads.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 08:43 PM
Well, you can still vote for something higher....

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 08:45 PM
I find 45-50 to be a bit too much. Well, not that 5 or so matter at that point.

Wait, did I say most threads? I meant the large polls like we're talking about.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 08:46 PM
In your case, I'd probably hedge my bets in lobbying people who haven't seen this yet and telling them to vote for over 9000, if you think 30's too low.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 08:46 PM
I find 45-50 to be a bit too much. Well, not that 5 or so matter at that point.

Wait, did I say most threads? I meant the large polls like we're talking about.

Well, the thing is, I don't see why it matters if we set it "too high". No-one is actually going to make a poll with 50 options anyway, so the fact that the option is there doesn't really matter. If, on the other hand, we set it too low, then it can cause problems.

Cruor
April 3rd, 2011, 09:12 PM
While you guys are using logic to figure out how much would be necessary I'm just doing simple math (actually, it can't even be called math). I mean there's about 27 Servants in the entire Fate franchise (FSN has 11, F/h a adds in 1, f/z adds in 5, and F/E adds in 10. Oh wait, Saver makes 11, right? So 28?). Meanwhile, doing DAA's would get a similar number. So yeah, I think 30 is enough practically for most things but I don't like such a gap in what's necessary and what's not (as in in case we need it sooner or later). And then if we wanna get into something like 'favorite females poll' (which I won't even bother trying to calculate. In fact, I'd sooner go look up Shoryuma's poll and count how many there are). So yeah, practically I'd think 35/40 would be best unless we wanna get into more ridiculous polls like favorite character ones. Which would be simpler if we split it up or went with the 9000 choice.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 09:18 PM
Well, of course.

However, my vote isn't based on how much I think we'll actually need, but rather on the fact that there's no real need to limit it at all (beyond a very high limit that prevents people making absurdly large polls in order to break the site). Just because no-one is ever going to make a 100-choice poll, that doesn't mean that we should restrict it so that they can't.

RoadBuster
April 3rd, 2011, 10:36 PM
Voted for 30 for now. Seems like that would be enough to cover most bases.

Dark Pulse
April 3rd, 2011, 11:34 PM
No, he needs a mod to add the ability to retract votes (which is why I'm not pressing him about that, even though it would be very useful). I'm pretty sure that increasing the poll size is merely a matter of changing some number in the board settings.It is.


Well, the issue was you never actually gave him a number to put there. So he just joked around, unwilling to make some arbitrary decision on behalf of everyone.

Which is what this poll's useful for, arguably.Correct. Plus I don't really see why one would need 50 choices anyway. Then again, I also don't see why we'd need more than 10. Is it that much of an inconvenience to do things in rounds? Too much information can be just as bad as too little.

Regardless, since I do want more of a community input, I've put it to a community vote. Whatever choice gets the majority wins, it's that simple. Yes, this means if 50 people picked 10 and 49 picked 50, 10 wins, as it reflects more of the opinion of people who actually voted. If you didn't vote, you have no right to complain, because you had your chance to do so, and an acceptable amount of time to do it in. If your choice doesn't win, suck it up - you got outvoted, in as fair of a system as I could make it. Your opinion may not be everyone's, and if your opinion loses, there's not much you can do but deal with it. It may sound harsh, but facts are facts.


I'm pretty sure he was fine with increasing it.I am, though I didn't appreciate being made out to be a dick simply because I didn't change the vBulletin default of 10, plus IIRC the Beast's limit was 10 votes anyway and nobody ever seemed to have a problem with that. At the same time, I do see the logical argument for increasing it, but at the same time, I question how many people would actually make use of it. With the exception of "Favorite Character" polls, can you really think of any sort of question that'd need more than 10 choices? I can't. Admittedly, it's somewhat foolish to also say "Well, why raise it if only a few polls will ever need it?" but at the same time, like I said, people tend to get indecisive and a bit antsy when a whole load of choices are thrown at their face. It's psychology, basically - too many options and the mind shuts down.


Dark Pulse responded once, and ended it with a :P smiley. I'm not sure he was really trying to dissuade you, just being silly since you never actually answered his first question, other than "Well, I dunno, I just know I want MORE."

As for Cruor thing, I must've imagined it.

DP made a single argument, and it was sort of hand wavy and more in the interest of actually like, discussing to find the purpose of the change, and where it should be set to. He never said no to the idea, he just resisted implementing it without any actual dialogue or consideration of how.

And then you start speaking about him like some despot while you were talking to me. That's all, really. Dark Pulse's apparent reluctance to increase it is just your red-eye-raged delusion.More or less correct. I'm going by community opinion. Thus, this forum, and whenever something comes up, these polls.

PERSONALLY, I see no reason to raise it. Just round robin your polls, because the only things that'd need more than 10 options are favorite character polls for the most part - and how many times can you ask that question over and over? Regardless, since I want community input, I will go with what the community decides. The simple majority wins; that's that. Mike's free to vote for 50 if he wants to, but if 25 wins, 25 wins, and he'll just have to swallow it, like it or not. Not everyone's going to share his opinion, nor mine; this is your chance to get out and be heard.


Well, I wouldn't sweat it.

All in all, I don't actually mind seeing the vote cap go up, and people seem pretty comfortable with either 20 or 30, most likely 30.

I think it'd just be helpful if you were more patient with Dark Pulse. If he seems to be unnecessarily dragging his feet to you, I think that's just him being reluctant to tinker so much on the executive level, or just a desire to do it right the first time.

Which isn't surprising, I think? The last time he took the initiative on something, was the mod/reputation idea, and that was met with a pretty vocal and large opposition, so y'know.Correct, and I abandoned that idea because I knew it'd go nowhere. The intent of that was to have more community input. This is basically "Plan D" (Plan B being the Experience mod that also will likely not get installed, and Plan C being applications for moderator positions if we begin getting overworked.) Also, this way, community policy can help shape things, which ultimately makes things healthier for the community as a whole. Not all of us are around all the time, after all; life may come up, or a bunch of things. We really need to have a plan for some situation like this, and we need it pretty soon. It's essentially four people running the show, and that's never good for a decent-sized forum. All effective moderation, etc. is through us. I don't want that. I'm still thinking ways that we can get some trusted community members into the fold, so don't be surprised if, eventually, a vote goes up after we take some applications in, and put up the vote of "Who do you think should become community moderator?" Including a "None of the above" vote - which, like all others, would be honored if won.


Like, if I had done this poll, I'd probably have started with the binary question of "Should polls have a cap on the number of choices that the author can insert?" or something.Doesn't work that way. It's something an admin has to set.

Also, lolitics? In MY thread? It's more likely than I think.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 11:44 PM
Regardless, since I do want more of a community input, I've put it to a community vote. Whatever choice gets the majority wins, it's that simple. Yes, this means if 50 people picked 10 and 49 picked 50, 10 wins, as it reflects more of the opinion of people who actually voted. If you didn't vote, you have no right to complain, because you had your chance to do so, and an acceptable amount of time to do it in. If your choice doesn't win, suck it up - you got outvoted, in as fair of a system as I could make it. Your opinion may not be everyone's, and if your opinion loses, there's not much you can do but deal with it. It may sound harsh, but facts are facts.

Well, my issue with this is if 50 people pick 10, 40 pick 50 and another 40 pick 45. Clearly the people who picked 50 would prefer 45 over 10, and yet 10 would have the most votes due to the vote being split between 45 and 50, which to me seems pretty absurd.

It doesn't seem like it's going to go that way, fortunately, but it easily could have.


I am, though I didn't appreciate being made out to be a dick simply because I didn't change the vBulletin default of 10, plus IIRC the Beast's limit was 10 votes anyway and nobody ever seemed to have a problem with that.

I'm pretty sure that the BL limit was higher than that, actually, because we had polls with a lot more than 10 characters in them.


At the same time, I do see the logical argument for increasing it, but at the same time, I question how many people would actually make use of it. With the exception of "Favorite Character" polls, can you really think of any sort of question that'd need more than 10 choices? I can't. Admittedly, it's somewhat foolish to also say "Well, why raise it if only a few polls will ever need it?" but at the same time, like I said, people tend to get indecisive and a bit antsy when a whole load of choices are thrown at their face. It's psychology, basically - too many options and the mind shuts down.

Well, the point is, if people don't use it, so what? What have you lost? If, on the other hand, people actually do need it and you won't raise it, it causes real problems.


PERSONALLY, I see no reason to raise it. Just round robin your polls, because the only things that'd need more than 10 options are favorite character polls for the most part - and how many times can you ask that question over and over?

Well, we've already found one case, which is Lantz's poll for choosing which route he should write next. Which, IMO, is enough by itself to justify increasing it.

Jase
April 3rd, 2011, 11:46 PM
Actually, I think Mike was questioning the case where you might have a vote spread of say, exaggerating it:

10: 50
20: 49
30: 49
40: 49
50: 49

etc. Where FPTP would say 10 wins, but obviously, the desire for a higher number is much better supported. It's just its supporters aren't in agreement on how much higher it should be.

Dark Pulse
April 3rd, 2011, 11:52 PM
Well, my issue with this is if 50 people pick 10, 40 pick 50 and another 40 pick 45. Clearly the people who picked 50 would prefer 45 over 10, and yet 10 would have the most votes due to the vote being split between 45 and 50, which to me seems pretty absurd.

It doesn't seem like it's going to go that way, fortunately, but it easily could have.Doesn't matter. When one has multiple choices, one has to win. It 50% of people vote for a centrist government, 35% vote for right-wing, and 15% vote for left-wing, does that mean the government should be center-right because there were more right-wingers than left-wingers?


I'm pretty sure that the BL limit was higher than that, actually, because we had polls with a lot more than 10 characters in them.It's possible I'm misremembering. Regardless, the uses of needing it would still be slim. At the same time, acceptable limits must be achieved, because if a spammer got on here and found unlimited options... he'd have a field day.


Well, the point is, if people don't use it, so what? What have you lost? If, on the other hand, people actually do need it and you won't raise it, it causes real problems.See above. Do you want to be the idiot who does Damage Control when something like that happens? :p


Well, we've already found one case, which is Lantz's poll for choosing which route he should write next. Which, IMO, is enough by itself to justify increasing it.There's always exceptions to the rule, but I'd say probably 90% of the polls that will ever be created will use 10 or less. Regardless, I've put it up to vote. When the poll ends, the winner is implemented. That's just the way it works.


Actually, I think Mike was questioning the case where you might have a vote spread of say, exaggerating it:

10: 50
20: 49
30: 49
40: 49
50: 49

etc. Where FPTP would say 10 wins, but obviously, the desire for a higher number is much better supported. It's just its supporters aren't in agreement on how much higher it should be.While possible, that's so incredibly unlikely that in that case I'd probably just do a 3-day runoff or something between 20-50, and then a 3-day runoff between 10 and the winner of that.

If they STILL can't decide, 10 would win, because it's obvious they can't make up their fucking minds.

Mike1984
April 3rd, 2011, 11:59 PM
Doesn't matter. When one has multiple choices, one has to win. It 50% of people vote for a centrist government, 35% vote for right-wing, and 15% vote for left-wing, does that mean the government should be center-right because there were more right-wingers than left-wingers?

Yes, it should be, actually :p

But, in this case, the situation I was thinking of is more ;like 30% voting for the right wing, 34% for the centre and 36% for the left wing. The left wing would win despite the fact that 64% of the people would clearly prefer the centrist candidate.


It's possible I'm misremembering. Regardless, the uses of needing it would still be slim. At the same time, acceptable limits must be achieved, because if a spammer got on here and found unlimited options... he'd have a field day.

Well, of course (and, if you look at my previous posts, you'll see that I said exactly that several times).


See above. Do you want to be the idiot who does Damage Control when something like that happens? :p

Well, obviously not, but I can't see why it would be a problem if you set the limit to e.g. 100 (as an example of something which would be beyond anything anyone will ever need). I agree that making it unlimited is not plausible, but setting the limit higher than anything we're ever possibly going to need is.


There's always exceptions to the rule, but I'd say probably 90% of the polls that will ever be created will use 10 or less.

That's probably true, yes, but for the 10% that won't be it's a serious hassle.


Regardless, I've put it up to vote. When the poll ends, the winner is implemented. That's just the way it works.

Well, fair enough.


While possible, that's so incredibly unlikely that in that case I'd probably just do a 3-day runoff or something between 20-50, and then a 3-day runoff between 10 and the winner of that.

It's not anything like as unlikely as you think, actually, at least not in a slightly less absurd form. You could easily get, for instance, 10 votes for 10 and then 5 for each of 25, 30, 35 and 40.

This seems like a reasonable idea, though.


If they STILL can't decide, 10 would win, because it's obvious they can't make up their fucking minds.

What do you mean by "can't decide"...?

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 12:08 AM
Yes, it should be, actually :p

But, in this case, the situation I was thinking of is more ;like 30% voting for the right wing, 34% for the centre and 36% for the left wing. The left wing would win despite the fact that 64% of the people would clearly prefer the centrist candidate.Wrong. 34% voted for the centrist. 30% voted for the right. You can't - and don't - combine them like that. By this logic, the opposition should win every election, since the votes of the "losers" would out-combine the votes of the winner.


Well, obviously not, but I can't see why it would be a problem if you set the limit to e.g. 100 (as an example of something which would be beyond anything anyone will ever need). I agree that making it unlimited is not plausible, but setting the limit higher than anything we're ever possibly going to need is.And I don't think we need more than 10, and definitely not more than 50. The community seems to be settling on 30 right now, but there's still several days left to vote. Until the poll expires, it's still technically anyone's game.


That's probably true, yes, but for the 10% that won't be it's a serious hassle.In your opinion. Some other people may not care as much as you do. That's also what this vote will resolve.


What do you mean by "can't decide"...?Simply put, if even after a runoff they can't come to a consensus, then it's clear they won't get anywhere with their votes because they're too busy bickering and bitching. The whole point of a runoff is to come to some mutually-agreeable choice. If they can't do that not once, but twice, they've effectively proved their futility at swaying people towards one choice or another - and in that case a more concrete vote would win. You can't have runoff after runoff or the whole system gets held up.

Think of it like papal elections: They shut all the cardinals in, and they don't go anywhere until they agree on a candidate by a majority. The runoff is basically the "shut-in period." If you can't agree on one within 3 days, then you're just going to keep fighting, so there's little point in continuing.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 12:15 AM
Wrong. 34% voted for the centrist. 30% voted for the right. You can't - and don't - combine them like that. By this logic, the opposition should win every election, since the votes of the "losers" would out-combine the votes of the winner.

However, when you're voting on a clearly numerical question (like this one) it's absurd to use that logic. If someone votes for 50, they'd obviously support 45 over 10, and to assume that they're neutral when comparing 45 to 10 (especially with non-retractable votes, which means that someone who voted for 50 can't change to 45 if they see that 50 can't win) is just plain absurd, and somewhat unfair.


And I don't think we need more than 10, and definitely not more than 50. The community seems to be settling on 30 right now, but there's still several days left to vote. Until the poll expires, it's still technically anyone's game.

Well, we definitely do need more than 10. I doubt we need more than 50 (or even 30), honestly, but there's no harm in it, so I don't see why not to set it as high as possible.


Simply put, if even after a runoff they can't come to a consensus, then it's clear they won't get anywhere with their votes because they're too busy bickering and bitching. The whole point of a runoff is to come to some mutually-agreeable choice. If they can't do that not once, but twice, they've effectively proved their futility at swaying people towards one choice or another - and in that case a more concrete vote would win. You can't have runoff after runoff or the whole system gets held up.

What, so if one option gets 45% of the vote in the run-off, then you'll stick with 10 by default even though that option is clearly more popular than it?


Think of it like papal elections: They shutter all the cardinals in, and they don't go anywhere until they agree on a candidate by a majority. The runoff is basically the "shut-in period." If you can't agree on one within 3 days, then you're just going to keep fighting, so there's little point in continuing.

Well, the problem with that is that, if the cardinals don't agree initially, they change their votes until they do. We can't do that, so even if everyone would mutually accept 30 as an option, the poll can't adjust to reflect that.

ItsaRandomUsername
April 4th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Over Nine Thousand for me.

Granted, I'm pretty sure most polls won't need to go higher than 50 or even 40, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Theocrass
April 4th, 2011, 12:26 AM
I voted for 30, 'cuz I wanna be popular. ;_;

Jase
April 4th, 2011, 12:28 AM
Well, the problem with that is that, if the cardinals don't agree initially, they change their votes until they do. We can't do that, so even if everyone would mutually accept 30 as an option, the poll can't adjust to reflect that.

Which is when you do what DP said he'd do: start a new thread with a new poll to sort that out.

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 12:46 AM
However, when you're voting on a clearly numerical question (like this one) it's absurd to use that logic. If someone votes for 50, they'd obviously support 45 over 10, and to assume that they're neutral when comparing 45 to 10 (especially with non-retractable votes, which means that someone who voted for 50 can't change to 45 if they see that 50 can't win) is just plain absurd, and somewhat unfair.Wrong. The question isn't "Do you support a higher number over a lower number." The question is "Which of these choices do you support." That's not how this poll works, despite what you think. You're voting for one specific, exact choice - not a range. If 10 gets 50 votes, and 45 gets 49 votes, and the others are scattered, 10 and 45 get a runoff. If there's ties, I would then runoff the tie and compare the tie to the nominal winner. If the tie can't be broken because nobody's willing to budge, then the nominal vote wins.


Well, we definitely do need more than 10. I doubt we need more than 50 (or even 30), honestly, but there's no harm in it, so I don't see why not to set it as high as possible.Because there is no "limit." It's a number I enter.


What, so if one option gets 45% of the vote in the run-off, then you'll stick with 10 by default even though that option is clearly more popular than it?Winner of the tied run-off will face the nominal winner. Basically, if any option gets more than 50% in the first round, it wins automatically. If no option gets a 50% majority, the top, say, 2-3 choices do a shorter run-off. Obviously, ties need to be broken as well.


Well, the problem with that is that, if the cardinals don't agree initially, they change their votes until they do. We can't do that, so even if everyone would mutually accept 30 as an option, the poll can't adjust to reflect that.Partially why I said I was looking into seeing if there's mods that allow vote retraction. Even if not, I can still edit the poll results if asked. In the case of runoffs, votes are anonymous; the reason the first round is public is so that people can't say "I voted, this rule sucks" and they obviously didn't.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Wrong. The question isn't "Do you support a higher number over a lower number." The question is "Which of these choices do you support." That's not how this poll works, despite what you think. You're voting for one specific, exact choice - not a range. If 10 gets 50 votes, and 45 gets 49 votes, and the others are scattered, 10 wins, period. The only way it wouldn't win is if there's ties, as I would then runoff the tie and compare the tie to the nominal winner. If the tie can't be broken because nobody's willing to budge, then the nominal vote wins.

But that's clearly not true, though. If I vote for 50, whilst I prefer 50, I still would rather 45 over 10, and to claim otherwise is just plain stupid.

Although, the way you're doing it seems to resolve this issue.


Because there is no "limit." It's a number I enter.

Well, OK, then just something far higher than the alternative.


Winner of the tied run-off will face the nominal winner. Basically, if any option gets more than 50% in the first round, it wins automatically. If no option gets a 50% majority, the top, say, 2-3 choices do a shorter run-off. Obviously, ties need to be broken as well.

Ah, OK.

So, basically, if no one option gets an absolute majority first time around, you're going to do a run-off between the top few options?

That makes sense, and resolves most of the issue I have with the vote being split.


Partially why I said I was looking into seeing if there's mods that allow vote retraction. Even if not, I can still edit the poll results if asked. In the case of runoffs, votes are anonymous; the reason the first round is public is so that people can't say "I voted, this rule sucks" and they obviously didn't.

Well, yeah, but the mod isn't here now, and that means that it's impossible to reach a "consensus" because most people will have voted before that consensus is reached.

Jase
April 4th, 2011, 01:01 AM
People could just cheat and chat in the thread before voting.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 01:04 AM
People could just cheat and chat in the thread before voting.

Well, yeah, but that's not necessarily reliable....

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 01:05 AM
But that's clearly not true, though. If I vote for 50, whilst I prefer 50, I still would rather 45 over 10, and to claim otherwise is just plain stupid.

Although, the way you're doing it seems to resolve this issue.Well, it's simply not that kind of vote. If you vote someone for elected office, you're voting that person, not someone "similar to them" or "like them." That's not how these sorts of votes work. Also, since you quoted my post pre-edit, I'm just clarifying that if there is no vote with >50%, then yes, a runoff of the top handful of choices (2-4) will be undertaken.


Ah, OK.

So, basically, if no one option gets an absolute majority first time around, you're going to do a run-off between the top few options?

That makes sense, and resolves most of the issue I have with the vote being split.Yes. At the same time, if something is >50% when the voting period ends, it instantly wins - no questions asked.


Well, yeah, but the mod isn't here now, and that means that it's impossible to reach a "consensus" because most people will have voted before that consensus is reached.So you simply debate, and reach a consensus, before the vote is put in. Of course, nothing's stopping the tally from happening earlier, but the voting will be anonymous in tiebreakers (NOT runoffs!) so that this way, there's no finger-pointing, accusations of backstabbing, etc.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 01:12 AM
Well, it's simply not that kind of vote. If you vote someone for elected office, you're voting that person, not someone "similar to them" or "like them." That's not how these sorts of votes work.

Yeah, but we're not voting for an elected office, we're voting for a number in a range of numbers, where it is clearly obvious that someone who votes for 50 will prefer 45 to 10.


Also, since you quoted my post pre-edit, I'm just clarifying that if there is no vote with >50%, then yes, a runoff of the top handful of choices (2-4) will be undertaken.

Well, in this case it's not too much of an issue (although it may be in the case of the run-off).


Yes. At the same time, if something is >50% when the voting period ends, it instantly wins - no questions asked.

Well, of course.

But, in that case there's no question of "vote-spreading" causing the effect, so it's not a problem.


So you simply debate, and reach a consensus, before the vote is put in. Of course, nothing's stopping the tally from happening earlier, but the voting will be anonymous in tiebreakers (NOT runoffs!) so that this way, there's no finger-pointing, accusations of backstabbing, etc.

Well, that makes sense, but it's not always easy to work out what the consensus actually is.

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Yeah, but we're not voting for an elected office, we're voting for a number in a range of numbers, where it is clearly obvious that someone who votes for 50 will prefer 45 to 10.For the third time, no we're not. We're voting for a number. If you want 45, you're voting for 45. You're not voting for 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50. You're voting for 45.

I really don't know how to make this any more obvious. That's not how I'm running this poll. You're voting for an EXACT number. No more, no less. End of story.


Well, that makes sense, but it's not always easy to work out what the consensus actually is.This is the problem of the tied voters, not mine. They have to resolve this - or cede their vote.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 01:20 AM
For the third time, no we're not. We're voting for a number. If you want 45, you're voting for 45. You're not voting for 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50. You're voting for 45.

I really don't know how to make this any more obvious. That's not how I'm running this poll. You're voting for an EXACT number. No more, no less. End of story.

And, again, I don't care about an exact number, and I doubt that anyone else does, either. I just have a general idea of how high it should be.

Not that it matters much, given that you're holding a run-off to resolve the issue if no one option gets 50% the first time around. That's basically all I was advocating anyway.


This is the problem of the tied voters, not mine. They have to resolve this - or cede their vote.

I was talking more about the run-off, actually.

What happens if no option gets 50% in that? Does the one with the most votes win?

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 01:24 AM
And, again, I don't care about an exact number, and I doubt that anyone else does, either. I just have a general idea of how high it should be.

Not that it matters much, given that you're holding a run-off to resolve the issue if no one option gets 50% the first time around. That's basically all I was advocating anyway.Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the only person thinking of a vote as being "ranged." But oh well; it hardly matters. You advocate no limit at all, as do a few other people.

We'll see where it lies in six days. It's that simple.


I was talking more about the run-off, actually.

What happens if no option gets 50% in that? Does the one with the most votes win?In that case, yes. In the run-off, simple majority wins, since by that point it's pared down to 2-4 options.

Cruor
April 4th, 2011, 02:34 PM
I am, though I didn't appreciate being made out to be a dick simply because I didn't change the vBulletin default of 10, plus IIRC the Beast's limit was 10 votes anyway and nobody ever seemed to have a problem with that. At the same time, I do see the logical argument for increasing it, but at the same time, I question how many people would actually make use of it. With the exception of "Favorite Character" polls, can you really think of any sort of question that'd need more than 10 choices? I can't. Admittedly, it's somewhat foolish to also say "Well, why raise it if only a few polls will ever need it?" but at the same time, like I said, people tend to get indecisive and a bit antsy when a whole load of choices are thrown at their face. It's psychology, basically - too many options and the mind shuts down.
This was the average poll size. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FPWojNIrwC4J:nrvnqsr.proboards.com/index.cgi%3Fboard%3Dgatherings%26action%3Ddisplay% 26thread%3D5678%26page%3D1+%22Favourite+Male+Chara cter+2010%22+site:nrvnqsr.proboards.com&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 05:48 PM
This was the average poll size. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FPWojNIrwC4J:nrvnqsr.proboards.com/index.cgi%3Fboard%3Dgatherings%26action%3Ddisplay% 26thread%3D5678%26page%3D1+%22Favourite+Male+Chara cter+2010%22+site:nrvnqsr.proboards.com&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)It was also a character poll, and thus - as I've noted - not your "average" poll. Your "average" poll would be ones that have nothing to do with characters, because, simply put, character polls are bound to have lots of choices. Character Polls are really the only ones that will benefit from a higher amount of choices, and honestly, in my opinion, bumping up the number of choices seems to be people just being too lazy to do it in rounds.

But, personal feelings aside, I will adjust it to whatever gets voted in.

Cruor
April 4th, 2011, 06:14 PM
How about, it was the average poll size inside Events & Gatherings.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Why should we be doing it "in rounds", though? If the question is "what is your favourite character" (as opposed to "which character is the most popular), then a large poll is the logical way to do it. 10 entries a poll is absurdly low, because it makes it virtually impossible to run any kind of favourite character poll in any sensible manner. And, unless you want us to clutter the thread with hundreds of threads like "favourite character part 103", it's the best way to run it....

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Why should we be doing it "in rounds", though? If the question is "what is your favourite character" (as opposed to "which character is the most popular), then a large poll is the logical way to do it. 10 entries a poll is absurdly low, because it makes it virtually impossible to run any kind of favourite character poll in any sensible manner. And, unless you want us to clutter the thread with hundreds of threads like "favourite character part 103", it's the best way to run it....Tournaments are run in rounds. In a poll with 10 choices, the top three from that poll advance to the next round. Repeat this 3 times. The fourth poll then consists of winners of the other three.

This way, it's an actual COMPETITION, and not just a handful of favorites running away with the vote.

Jase
April 4th, 2011, 06:38 PM
People could always just post who's their favourite. It'd be about the same usefulness, and people could freely add characters yet to be considered.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 06:50 PM
Tournaments are run in rounds. In a poll with 10 choices, the top three from that poll advance to the next round. Repeat this 3 times. The fourth poll then consists of winners of the other three.

This way, it's an actual COMPETITION, and not just a handful of favorites running away with the vote.

Yeah, but then that's not a "favourite character" poll any more, because you're voting for which character you like out of the list given rather than your actual favourite.

I don't disagree with the concept of such a tournament (although, I'm not sure how it would stop the favourites "running away with it", if anything having fewer options increases their share of the vote), but it's asking a different question. A "favourite character" poll asks "which character is your favourite out of the whole Nasuverse (or this subset of it)", whereas a tournament like you're suggesting is asking "which character do you prefer from the list given". If you're going to run a tournament like that, it should really be 1 vs 1 and not 10 at a time, because otherwise it doesn't really tell you anything.


People could always just post who's their favourite. It'd be about the same usefulness, and people could freely add characters yet to be considered.

Yeah, they could, but then the person running the poll has to count them, which is a pain in the ass. Plus, it makes it impossible to tell at a glance who is actually winning.

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 06:53 PM
Arguably, a poll that never ends has no winner, either. :p

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Arguably, a poll that never ends has no winner, either. :p

Well, yeah, but you can just make it "favourite heroine 2010" and then end it at the end of the year....

But, in fact, that's another problem with your "competition" idea. It can't be made to run long-term, because it has multiple "rounds".

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 10:10 PM
But, in fact, that's another problem with your "competition" idea. It can't be made to run long-term, because it has multiple "rounds".So it eventually produces a definite winner.

I don't exactly see the problem with that.

RacingeR
April 4th, 2011, 10:17 PM
Mike's point is that in a regular poll, like for example the "Favorite Characters TM 2011" or something like that, would have a time limit for closing at the end of the year, while the round-robin would prevent the polls during so much time, or something like that.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 10:19 PM
So it eventually produces a definite winner.

I don't exactly see the problem with that.

Well, again, it depends on what your intentions are....

I agree that the sort of contest you're suggesting has a place, but so does a longer-term single poll with a much larger number of options.


Mike's point is that in a regular poll, like for example the "Favorite Characters TM 2011" or something like that, would have a time limit for closing at the end of the year, while the round-robin would prevent the polls during so much time, or something like that.

Yep, got it in one.

That sort of poll idea (with multiple stages) is perfectly OK as a concept, but it would necessarily have to last only a short time, which means that it is less likely to be seen by everyone who might want to vote. Also, for many people, the earlier rounds would be pointless, because there's no way in hell that Rin, Saber, Arc etc. are going to get knocked out.

RacingeR
April 4th, 2011, 10:23 PM
It also is pretty unjust for some characters. I pity the ones who end in the poll with Saber, for example. I think that just putting everyone on one giant poll is better.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 10:31 PM
It also is pretty unjust for some characters. I pity the ones who end in the poll with Saber, for example. I think that just putting everyone on one giant poll is better.

Well, yeah, there's that too. Who gets into the final poll will be heavily affected by who they're paired with in the preliminary rounds, and not only in terms of being paired with Rin or Saber. For example, if you put Rider and Sakura in separate polls, I'd say that they'd both probably make the final. But, if you put them together in one poll, there's a decent chance that one or both would miss out, due to the fact that most Sakura fans like Rider, and vice-versa, and thus the vote would be split.

Jase
April 4th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Except round robin implies reseeding and new rounds according to matching characters of the same caliber in "points" .

If round robin were so badly conceived that things happened like that so easily, it would not be the major competitive format of basically every sport/game that can handle many simultaneous games at once (almost every TCG, tennis, curling, chess, etc).

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 10:37 PM
Except round robin implies reseeding and new rounds according to matching characters of the same caliber in "points" .

If round robin were so badly conceived that things happened like that so easily, it would not be the major competitive format of basically every sport/game that can handle many simultaneous games at once (almost every TCG, tennis, curling, chess, etc).This.

Stronger characters are seeded against stronger characters. If Ryougi Shiki and Saber are facing, say, Seo Akira and Kokutou Azaka, there's no chance for those two to win. (Much as I like them both.)

If they're facing each other, however...

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 10:38 PM
Except round robin implies reseeding and new rounds according to matching characters of the same caliber in "points" .

If round robin were so badly conceived that things happened like that so easily, it would not be the major competitive format of basically every sport/game that can handle many simultaneous games at once (almost every TCG, tennis, curling, chess, etc).

Yeah, but we're not talking about round-robin here. We're talking about a first round with 10 characters, and then a final with the best from each group.

A round robin tournament would indeed work perfectly well, but it would also require a ridiculously large number of threads in order to run the poll effectively.


This.

Stronger characters are seeded against stronger characters. If Ryougi Shiki and Saber are facing, say, Seo Akira and Kokutou Azaka, there's no chance for those two to win. (Much as I like them both.)

If they're facing each other, however...

Yeah, but it's not even just "seeding", because liking two characters is not indepedant. Someone who likes Sakura is more likely to also like Rider, so if you put the two of them in the same group of 10, they both lose out. And, the same likely applies for lots of other characters.

What you're suggesting is fine if you're doing one-on-one battles, but that would require an ungodly number of threads, since each thread can only have one poll and each individual battle would require its own poll.

RacingeR
April 4th, 2011, 10:44 PM
Oh yeah, i got confused with the definitions.

I was talking about the first round with then characters with a final.

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Yeah, but it's not even just "seeding", because liking two characters is not indepedant. Someone who likes Sakura is more likely to also like Rider, so if you put the two of them in the same group of 10, they both lose out. And, the same likely applies for lots of other characters.

What you're suggesting is fine if you're doing one-on-one battles, but that would require an ungodly number of threads.Really? So one is more likely to like all things attached to a character? Let's see the proof of this. Meanwhile, I'll attach proof for one of mine... though it's admittedly not Nasuverse.

http://www.puyonexus.net/imageboard/image/15557.jpg

The girl is Feli. You may recognize her as the girl in my last few avatars. I like Feli. I like her a lot.

The "Knight Dog" holding her is named Baldanders. She summoned him accidentally. She does like him. I can't stand him at all.

So y'see, one does not have to like all things with a character. By this definition, here's a few other things I'd have to like:


Emiya Shirou, because I like Tohsaka Rin. I like Shirou, but not as much as I "should" according to this.
Final Fantasy VIII's Irvine Kinneas, because I like Selphie Tilmitt. Irvine's got a decent Limit Break, but the whole "Bishounen Cowboy" never caught on with me.
Chili Dogs, because I like the Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons (Both AoSTH and SatAM). I don't like Chili at all.

I think this proves my points. Liking Sakura doesn't mean one automatically likes Rider, and vice versa. Will you find people who like both? Sure. But you'll also find some who only like one or the other, and you'll find some who like neither.

As for the tournament, it'd probably be mass entries for the first 3 (4?) groups, then it'd be pared down to an even number, with 1 on 1s. More threads, sure, but you're only voting on one thing at a time, right?

RacingeR
April 4th, 2011, 10:53 PM
But it seems like an enormous pain since one could simply amp the poll option limit and be done with it?

Then again, this whole discussion is a bit unnecesary, since it shall be what the poll shows, and it seems like 30 is winning with a four point lead.

Dark Pulse
April 4th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Then again, this whole discussion is a bit unnecesary, since it shall be what the poll shows, and it seems like 30 is winning with a four point lead.It's also not 50% of the vote, which means there'd be a smaller, quicker run-off.

Assuming votes ended exactly as they are (and I doubt this), it'd be 30, 20, and No limit.

Jase
April 4th, 2011, 11:00 PM
Does the forum support multiple votes?

Cause batches of 9~10 with 3 votes per batch works okay.

Mike1984
April 4th, 2011, 11:02 PM
Really? So one is more likely to like all things attached to a character? Let's see the proof of this. Meanwhile, I'll attach proof for one of mine... though it's admittedly not Nasuverse.

Most Sakura fans like Rider.

Also, it's not just that. If you like one character, you're more likely to like characters that are similar to them.


So y'see, one does not have to like all things with a character.

No, you do not have to. But, you are more likely to.


I think this proves my points. Liking Sakura doesn't mean one automatically likes Rider, and vice versa.

Of course it doesn't. But, statistically speaking, if you like Sakura, you're more likely to like Rider than if you don't, and vice-versa.


As for the tournament, it'd probably be mass entries for the first 3 (4?) groups, then it'd be pared down to an even number, with 1 on 1s. More threads, sure, but you're only voting on one thing at a time, right?

You're still going to have a lot of one-on-ones to run.

I would actually like to run a poll that goes something like that at some point, though. The only problem is trying to get a structure which avoids eliminating popular characters early in mass votes without having too many polls. I'd imagine it would need its own sub-forum, though, to prevent cluttering the main polls forum.


It's also not 50% of the vote, which means there'd be a smaller, quicker run-off.

Assuming votes ended exactly as they are (and I doubt this), it'd be 30, 20, and No limit.

I think it's safe to assume that 30 is going to win, though, because if it goes to a run-off I will certainly switch to that (because no-limit has no chance of winning), and so, I suspect, would most other people who voted for it.

Cruor
April 5th, 2011, 12:27 AM
Does the forum support multiple votes?

Cause batches of 9~10 with 3 votes per batch works okay.

Yeah. Just nobody used it yet I don't think.

Dark Pulse
April 5th, 2011, 07:44 AM
Does the forum support multiple votes?

Cause batches of 9~10 with 3 votes per batch works okay.Yes, I can enable users to pick multiple votes. I also SHOULD be able to limit how many maximum choices they can pick, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Erlkonig
April 5th, 2011, 03:16 PM
>mfw the majority chose the option I first chose

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Iw2Ma2ttF5g/S8OVYyCqUMI/AAAAAAAAAI0/l9pEmH47C5w/s1600/Fuck_Yea.PNG

Dark Pulse
April 6th, 2011, 01:51 AM
>mfw the majority chose the option I first chose

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Iw2Ma2ttF5g/S8OVYyCqUMI/AAAAAAAAAI0/l9pEmH47C5w/s1600/Fuck_Yea.PNGI'll also note it's been losing ground. 20 has begun to catch up.

Mike1984
April 6th, 2011, 01:59 AM
Well, it's clear that no one option is going to attain a majority here in any case, so there's going to be a run-off.

What's the criteria for deciding whether or not an option qualifies?

Kotonoha
April 6th, 2011, 11:49 AM
I'll also note it's been losing ground. 20 has begun to catch up.

Not if I can help it!

Tobias
April 6th, 2011, 12:05 PM
eh, if it goes to a recount I might swap from 20 to 30 actually.

Mike1984
April 6th, 2011, 12:06 PM
Well, I'd say that it's almost certainly going to, because 30 needs at least another 4 or 5 unanswered votes to avoid it.

Counterguardian
April 7th, 2011, 05:39 AM
Well, seeing that this is Beast's Lair and going with the whole Nrvnqsr theme, why not just make it 666 options?

Mike1984
April 7th, 2011, 05:43 AM
Well, that would actually be a pretty good arbitrary limit to set if we went for the "over nine thousand" option, but I don't think that's going to win, so....

Dark Pulse
April 7th, 2011, 05:06 PM
Well, it's clear that no one option is going to attain a majority here in any case, so there's going to be a run-off.

What's the criteria for deciding whether or not an option qualifies?Basically, the next one to three closest votes to the largest vote-getter qualify, depending on the poll size:

3-4 Options: 1
5-7 Options: 2
8-10 Options: 3

It's purely arbitrary, but it's fair. IMO, anyway.

Dark Pulse
April 10th, 2011, 10:39 AM
It's runoff time! (http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/368-Vote-1a-THE-RUNOFF!)

With that topic posted, this one has served its purpose.