1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Did Voting Change Discourage Cross Shard Vote?

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Jerec KTM, Dec 4, 2013.

  1. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    NO
    [​IMG]
    Found these at the moongates across Great Lakes. We can't even vote yet and people are already scouring for cross shard votes.​
    I think the failure to think about this change is going to result in MORE cross shard voting.. why? Because you've made anyone that doesn't play Great Lakes have the same voting power as me on my main shard. Before, they would have had to really put time and effort into making characters and running them to a town stone. Doing this seven times is a pain in the butt and is why you only saw those who really really wanted that Governor to win do it.​
    Now it is just one guy you can make to vote, which is a much lower lazy bar to clear when trying to get people to cross shard vote.​
     
    Dot_Warner and Lord Frodo like this.
  2. Winter

    Winter Lore Keeper

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    716
    I really don't understand the problem with this - I'd call it creative politicking.

    Anyone who votes has to be a citizen of the city they are voting in, and get only one vote per city/shard per account. If someone takes the time to build up citizenship for a town, I just can't see the harm.

    What are you saying is the problem? What and who is it harming?
     
  3. Vexxed

    Vexxed Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    351
    If you really didn't want people to be X-shard voting then you shouldn't have reminded everyone to do so with your post.......just a thought
     
    #3 Vexxed, Dec 4, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2013
    virtualhabitat and startle like this.
  4. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    Eliminating vote trading across shards would take one-account-one-vote. One-shard-one-vote can't eliminate it but does scale things down. A sufficiently dominant group can no longer easily control six towns, especially with logrollers from other shards knowing what six cities to vote in.
     
  5. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    It should have never been changed. If you want to make it one vote per shard to limit cross shard trading, then just go all the way and make it one vote per account. Anything less is half arsed.

    And I will debate until we are both blue in the face with anyone that thinks this is making the problem smaller. It doesn't, it makes it worse. Now a sufficiently dominant group can easily win all the towns. A group of 20 voters who were committed could win a few cities by picking off the one or two that that the dominant group was lazy about. Now, those twenty are going to have to focus on one city because they don't have the voting base to spread across multiple towns to win a city.
     
    MalagAste likes this.
  6. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    Winter, it is no longer one per city per shard per account. It is now one per shard per account.

    Who did it harm? It harmed me. I have a couple of friends running and have characters in their respective cities, but I can only vote for one of my friends. This change has also discouraged people from running for governor. The governor of Vesper did not run again because when given the choice between voting for himself or helping his friends, he chose to help his friends and resigned.
     
  7. Winter

    Winter Lore Keeper

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    716
    Okay, thanks for the explanation and I understand that part now.

    But how does the x-shard voting that you are addressing affect this? That's the part I don't understand in your statement - I'm not arguing, just asking for clarification.
     
  8. Lord Nabin

    Lord Nabin High Council Sage - Greater Sosaria
    Professional Premium Stratics Veteran Supporter Glorious Lord ACW

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,086
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    I am fine with one city to vote in per shard per account.

    The point is for you to select a City to be Loyal to.

    For me that's Vesper :) I role play an old Sage that is a pure mage across the land. I need those little islands so that I can be effective when helping to defend my city on my own :)

    I travel across all the shards so great that I have to make one choice . It ads to the fun and negotiating for those of you that like the politics play style.

    All that being said, An Old Sage Traveling the lands of Sosaria needs to stay neutral to all of the political factions in order to help keep the peace while passing out a few words of Wisdom. Unless there is some obvious Evil doer that need to be put down. Then we must ride to rally the cities in defense.

    *Stokes the fire and pours a glass of good ole Moonglow Red*

    *Tips a hat to the Lady in Black in the corner*
     
  9. Lord Frodo

    Lord Frodo Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    Then you should have never been given the chance to have all 7 of your Chars Loyal to 7 different cities. Out of 14 Chars I have 9 of them loyal to 9 different cities so I could get the City Banners at 250K per. All 9 of those Chars are "Adored" and I am being told that I can only vote 2 times even though I worked up City Loyalty in 9 cities on 9 different Chars. What they should have done is to make it where you had to have earned loyalty in that city before you could vote, not just go to the menu and pick that city and be able to vote right away.
     
  10. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    Winter, I am not taking it as an argument :)

    The problem is this change was put in to counteract x-shard voting because someone on Atlantic lost their minds due to the amount of cross shard vote trading that happened there. Mythic tried to split the baby, make it one per account, and you upset all the people that play across several shards... leave it as is and the person who raised the crazy stink on Atlantic will continue to raise crazy stink. So they made it one per shard per account. Problem is, it didn't reduce the power of cross shard voting, it only increased it. It's a lot easier to get someone to do one cross shard vote than it was earlier to have someone do seven cross shard votes on a shard. This thus lowers the bar into getting people to cross shard vote. It also dilutes my voting power on my main shard, Great Lakes. Now, a person who never plays the shard can make a guy and have as much voting power as I.
     
  11. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    I've been playing this game off and on since the beta so I've gone through several different characters, each who has a different city. My main character was a warrior/mage from Minoc for a long time. I didn't delete him, but I sure as heck don't play him much with his pretty useless template now. So now I play my archer from Skara Brae more. Well, I play him a lot, but I also spend a lot of time on my tamer who is from Britain. So I did pick a city with them, and I have stayed loyal. For being loyal this long, they should have a vote.
     
    Lord Frodo likes this.
  12. startle

    startle Siege... Where the fun begins.
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Gilfane

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,279
    Likes Received:
    1,263

    I was under the impression that you now had to be at least Respected in the city you wish to vote in - or is that just for Titles???
     
  13. Lord Frodo

    Lord Frodo Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    City Election and Voting Fix
    All Governors must be Venerated to that city to run for election.
    All Voters must be Adored to that city in order to vote. If you want to take the time to become Adored with all 7 Chars to one city then all 7 of those Chars should have a right to vote in the election.

    Having 7 Chars on one account Adored to 7 different cities should allow me to vote in all 7 of those cities. I should not have to pick just 1 city with my account. This new system is totally WRONG. It makes it way to easy to buy X-Shard votes.
     
  14. Lord Frodo

    Lord Frodo Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    I am under the impression that all you have to do is pick that city to be loyal to and you can vote.
     
  15. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    Frodo, I do believe they bumped it up to the first rung of city rep, but that first level is easily attainable and cheap, especially if someone is buying cross shard votes.
     
    Lord Frodo likes this.
  16. cazador

    cazador Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,777
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    The problem still isn't solved..the crying was people with tons of accounts voting for themselves and friends with tons of account voting for them making it unfair so instead of it being 70 to 14 it'll be 10 to 2...excellent fix, well thought out!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  17. Lord Nabin

    Lord Nabin High Council Sage - Greater Sosaria
    Professional Premium Stratics Veteran Supporter Glorious Lord ACW

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,086
    Likes Received:
    2,270

    Ok I can see the point that you Roll play 7 characters in different cities from one account on a single shard. I just role play one character across all the shards from one account.
    :)

    Now what I get tired of hearing is a bunch of whining with no offers of solutions.

    Sooooo. WHat are all your suggestions for a solution. Keep in mind your never going to ever make everyone happy. I am not opposed to saying pick your favorite Role play character and let them vote.

    This is a role player event. I am aware that role play in game is not the prime event now. So If you are not into Role playing the situation you really should not be commenting here.
     
  18. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870

    Actually, as others and I have pointed out in the previous thread, it means a large guild can't just cast votes across six cities they've chosen. They'll now have to decide how to allocate their minimal votes. Do they distribute evenly? Do they throw more into one or two cities they want? Do they wait until the last minute, which still gives opponents an opportunity to outvote them?
     
    Lord Nabin likes this.
  19. cazador

    cazador Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,777
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    No big guilds still have the advantage..after this election is over and the crying begins..then we should discuss it.


    The math still adds up in favor the the people with more..well people. Everybody has 7 characters, the difference is now instead of me spreading out 14 vote to 2 cities it's spreading 2..still the exact same thing just less votes.

    And the guy who only had 7 votes for himself voted 7 times for himself only gets one.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  20. Lord Frodo

    Lord Frodo Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,845
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    see post 13
     
  21. Dot_Warner

    Dot_Warner Babbling Loonie
    Governor Stratics Veteran Britain [BRIT]

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    Likes Received:
    3,249
    Before this change you could only vote in a city ONCE per account, but cast votes in UP TO 7 cities per account. So one person couldn't vote for themselves 7 times unless they had 7 accounts.

    Now we can only vote ONCE PER SHARD, period.

    The groups with big voting blocs WILL STILL HAVE BIG VOTING BLOCS, they will just need to spend their votes more wisely. The change only lessened their power a little bit, but their "voice" is still loud.

    For a system that is currently 100% RP driven, Mythic sure is cutting RP off at the knees.
     
    MalagAste likes this.
  22. Lord Nabin

    Lord Nabin High Council Sage - Greater Sosaria
    Professional Premium Stratics Veteran Supporter Glorious Lord ACW

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,086
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Noted
     
  23. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    I like Frodo's idea for having to be adored to vote way better than just limiting one per shard per account. You could also make the loyalty level decay faster so that they have to pay more often to keep up that level of city fame. It would have been a much better incremental experiment in dealing with voting.

    I also would offer the idea of giving the players the ability to pick a primary shard where all of their characters vote, and for us that like to play on several shards (I do play on Atlantic some), they would be able to designate 2 shards as secondary shards where they could vote once per shard. I know this idea would require way more work than Frodo's, but it is an idea.
     
  24. Lord Nabin

    Lord Nabin High Council Sage - Greater Sosaria
    Professional Premium Stratics Veteran Supporter Glorious Lord ACW

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,086
    Likes Received:
    2,270

    I like Ideas Keep throwing them out everyone

    *Stokes the fire and sips from a nice glass of Good Old Moonglow Red*
     
    #24 Lord Nabin, Dec 5, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
    startle likes this.
  25. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    I've seen you point this out in other threads, but quite frankly don't understand you at all. A guild isn't limited to picking six or seven cities. I don't know where you came up with this limit in your hypothesis about how the elections function when the voting starts.

    If a guild has 40 people, they can easily have someone run in every city.

    So lets use this guild of 40 (Guild A) and compare them against a group of 20 organized players (Group B).

    Scenario A

    There are nine cities and Guild A runs someone in every city. Lets assume each of those 9 vote for each other, that leaves them 31 more votes to spread across the cities.

    Group B, aware of the changes now, knows it can't afford to spread the wealth, so they have to give up several cities they won last time because they were more organized. They are now focused on 2 cities, which leaves them with 18 votes left.

    Guild A now automatically starts out winning 7 of the cities because Group B knows it can't contest all 9 cities. So Group B has 18 votes to spread across those two cities to Guild A's 31. This is pretty easy, even if Group B threw all their votes into one city, Guild A would easily overwhelm them.

    Scenario B

    I know someone is going to say well Group B should contest all the cities to keep Guild A guessing!

    So Group B has a candidate in every city. Knowing they have to keep Guild A guessing, they don't even drop votes for every candidate and keep their 20 person voting power. Guild A still cast a vote for all their candidates leaving them with 31 votes to spread.

    Because of the guessing game, neither Guild A or Group B votes until the last minute. Oh the suspense, where are the votes going to go! No one knows! Wrong, because just like the last two elections, Guild A and Group B have people sitting at each of the stones monitoring the election percentages. As soon as Group B starts to make its move, Guild A sends out the IM and easily overwhelms whatever Group B tried... now Group B ends up with nothing at all.


    People look at the basic math and say, well, Guild A with 40 people had the opportunity for 240 votes to spread prior and the Group B had 120 with their 20 players, so the math hasn't changed. The basic truth to the math is it hasn't changed, but its affect on human nature HAS changed. It takes a lot more prodding to get guildmates to organize and make sure all 6 of their characters voted in the appropriate cities. This was Guild A's Achilles heel. This allowed Group B, even if it was smaller, if they were more organized, they could more likely pick off several cities. Now Guild A doesn't have to constantly prod their players to vote on all their characters, merely telling them they only have to on one guy. That is a lot EASIER to convince a player to do.

    Also, the waiting until the last minute strategy also rewards those with absolutely no life outside this game that can stay up until 2 or 3 AM when the city stone stops accepting votes. Do we really want to turn elections into the faction equivalent of capturing cities?
     
    #25 Jerec KTM, Dec 5, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  26. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92


    Hi Tina, I like the ideas, but they may be more appropriate in a different Startics' thread. I am sure they would love for you to add them there. Perhaps you could edit and post it there? I am trying to keep this thread on topic of the voting system. If we dive off topic in this thread about allowing governors to decorate, I am afraid it will turn into a flame war like all previous ones and become locked. Thanks!
     
  27. Tina Small

    Tina Small Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran 4H

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,539
    Likes Received:
    1,930
    Sorry, I was replying to Lord Nabin's request to give some solutions instead of just whining. I've deleted my post.
     
  28. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    Tina, there is a very good thread going on about the other aspects of the governors system. Governors are encouraged to post the pros/cons as well as any other ideas. I really encourage you to check it out here. It could really use having your ideas added!

    Here is another link since Stratics does such a crappy job of identifying URL links in a post: http://stratics.com/community/threads/government-system-feedback.308119/
     
  29. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    This is the flow: six characters per account (not everyone will have seven), GM communicated(ICQ, guild forum or anything else) what six cities they wanted, active members voted once in each of those cities. Thus they had no need to spread votes across a 7th city, let alone 8th.

    A guild with 50% plus one of shard's voters would insurmountably get whatever six cities they wanted. A guild with 33% would still be very difficult to challenge.

    You've chosen an example where Guild A has a super-majority, and a group with the most votes should win.

    Under the old system, if Guild A knew they were so dominant, they could have spread them as 26 votes across all nine. However, to be on the safe side, they could choose six cities and have everyone vote there.



    Withholding votes at the end can work both ways. With the new restrictions, now that Guild A can't have one vote per member in each of six cities, they must actually think of what cities they like the most. And are they more capable of waiting until the last minute?

    But again, you've chosen a scenario where Guild A is super-dominant. I go by scenarios of a bare majority and even less.


    No "prodding" was necessary under the old system. The communication is simple, and its content takes no thought, to tell active guild members to log on each character one day and go vote in the six cities. Under the new restrictions, communication is still simple, but now a guild must decide where to go to. Most votes must now be withheld until the last minute, in contrast to the old system where the time of voting didn't matter.



    There should be benefits for spending more time in the game, whether it's getting more Minax drops, doing ("controlling") more champion spawns, or training more.
     
  30. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    "in favor the the people with more..well people." That is how voting is supposed to work, you know.
     
    AppleJax likes this.
  31. cazador

    cazador Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,777
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Right I'm aware...the change still changes absolutely nothing..unless a massive surge of new people show up the outcome will stay the same with less effort of logging in to every single character across all accounts, and the whining will continue.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Jerec KTM likes this.
  32. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    It does change something. Any group no longer has six cities to vote in. Now they have to think about where to vote. They must actually watch election turnout now and employ a bit of strategy.

    If a guild has a majority of votes, they should win something. If they're a minority of sufficient significance, odds are they can still win a city or two. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be able to win anything. But now it's not so easy for them to pick six and vote on the first day.

    What I'd like to see: no declaring loyalty during the two-week cycle.
     
    #31 The Zog historian, Dec 5, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  33. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    Don't know what shard you play, but my experience with any shard other than Atlantic is that there is a 'Guild A' that has a super majority on the shard. They could easily dominate the shard elections if it came down to simple math.


    No prodding was necessary? What do you do for a living? You sound just like the number crunchers down the hall that come into a meeting with a nice powerpoint that includes their excel spreadsheets and numbers. Every time we fire one of them, I feel like we should give them a tombstone with the phrase "It's simple" engraved into it. Why? Because yeah, when you put numbers on a page, it is simple, but when you have to actually go wade knee deep in India, Thailand, and Indonesia, it is never that simple because once you add the human element to that equation, it blows 'simple' out of the water. Humans have different priorities than what some spreadsheet says they should be. This is especially true when it comes to getting them to do something that they have no interest in during their free time.

    I know this because I co-lead the Kul Tiras Marines which was a WoW guild of 150+ people for almost two years. We were a very successful guild and it even continued on for four years after I quit WoW. We had a webpage with forums and a built in calendar system that would even email reminders to people. Less than 70% of the guild would show up at the correct time and date even with all the effort we went through to remind them. Further, we would get people that would log on knowing it was raid time, pvp time, or whatever event time we had scheduled, but they wouldn't come... why? Because they have a busy real life and only had two hours to play, and by god, they were going to go do what they wanted to do. Prodding them was more likely to lead to a /gquit than to show up. I don't know Mythic's data on people's playing patterns, but I am betting a significant portion of the player base falls into that group, which means a lot of guild members fall into that group.

    So yes, this change has lowered the bar and made Guild A more powerful because we have made it easier to vote and be done with it. Before, having to vote on six characters would have been going out of their way and eaten into their time. Now, it's not such an annoying thing to do for the guild.

    Believe me, Guild A suffered from a lot of indifference, either from people that didn't want to waste time voting on all their characters or from people that just didn't care about the system. Guild A had no way of cracking the whip because at this time, there is no way of telling 1.) who is on the city stone, 2.) if they voted, and 3.) who they voted for. So there was no punishment that could be dealt out to encourage guild members to follow the simple communication sent out to vote.

    This is what has allowed organized Group Bs across several other shards to actually win some seats.

    In contrast to the old system? Again, I don't know what shard you play, but each election on Great Lakes has seen most of the groups wait until the last minute. We had one person in Trinsic, Ching A Ling, buying votes for a million a piece every day, but beyond that, all the other elections were a last day affair.


    Yes, and they get more minax drops, gold, and items. However, they should not have benefits over the majority of the player base when it comes to running for office. One of the failures of factions was that some of the most fun was to be had in defending the sigils. Problem was, it mostly happened in the AM when most players could not participate. If the system had been built to where they could only have been captured during prime time hours, the system would have been much more of a success... So lets not head down that road with the Governor system and cripple it before it's gotten a chance to fly.
     
    #32 Jerec KTM, Dec 5, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  34. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    I don't know the figures for mine. You do realize what super-majority means, don't you? That's such a high percentage that you'll notice I didn't talk about anything like that, just a guild with perhaps a bare majority, or the largest minority.

    "Prod" was your word, not mine. A forum post or mass ICQ, under the old system, outlining six cities and six names is not "prodding." Tactics under the new system now involve waiting, planning, and a great many status updates as any city is uncertain to the end. I should not have to keep repeating myself in explaining that.

    In the rest of your prating here, did you have a point? My point was a far simpler one that you overcomplicated. Since I am someone who has been to the Third World and spent no inconsiderable amount of time with the salt of the earth, I have no idea why you bring up irrelevant world travels. We aren't talking about poor countries with a relatively scarce few who know about a democratic process. UO players are more sophisticated than that, or at least should be, and the simplicity of UO elections doesn't require that someone ever have heard of public choice.

    I will overlook for now your ridiculous and uncalled-for insinuation about "Everytime we fire one of them." What I do for a living is irrelevant, but suffice it to say that certain people rely on me to know economics, finance, law and statistics better than they do. What do you do?


    Because you ran a guild of several dozen semi-active members, you think you're an expert on UO elections?

    Your comparison is absurd. A "calendar" of multiple events and specific times is nothing like an election system occurring once every three months, with 168 hours for people to log in to vote. Elections were naturally so long to allow even the most casual player an opportunity to have influence.


    Rubbish. Before, Guild A needed only pick six cities, tell everyone to vote in them, and that was that. Now there's much more communication and planning required.

    You should have realized that when talking about active players voting, I'm necessarily discounting any "indifferent" players. You're overcomplicating things again. And what are you saying, "because at this time"? Yes, at this time a large guild must be much more organized and cunning. And "there is no way of telling 1.) who is on the city stone"? That's why a GM sends out simple communications to vote for ___ in city ___.

    If a large guild has 50 players out of a shard's 100, counting all players voting and non-voting, but the guild has only 20 who heed the GM's call to vote in certain cities, with 50 total voters, then the guild is not really dominant and therefore shouldn't win.

    Now, I don't know what shard you play on, but the first two election cycles we've seen demonstrated that with one-character-one-vote, just as the exceedingly simple math predicts, a guild can set their sights on six cities. There was no thought needed. A post or ICQ need only list six cities and the candidate names. Now there must be constant scanning .


    Are you the one who mentioned him before? Has anything ever been done to him, and is he doing it today? Does he demand a vote first, or can people scam such an unethical person? Were I the EM, if it's so obvious and provable what he's doing, he shouldn't be allowed to serve as governor. It's not in the spirit of the game.

    It sounds like there's no dominant guild on Great Lakes that didn't just have its members throw all possible votes in six cities, or did such simplicity never occur to anyone?

    Comparing to factions is also absurd. There were specific times and places where people were needed, and I'll point out again that voting takes place over a week at a player's convenience.

    The voting now has been made much more fair. If someone comes from a large guild that wants to throw support behind its member, why shouldn't the guild benefit from having more people? Or are you advocating that a minority should be able to block them?
     
  35. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    Not once have I ever been talking about bare majorities, I've expressed that countless times any time this topic is discussed.


    The reason you have to keep explaining yourself is because you aren't making any sense. Tactics have not changed under the 'new' system. They are the same as they were before. I'm sorry if no one on your shard (which you haven't identified btw to back your points) figured the game out early. I'll take it as a good sign that they are getting smarter and catching up with the rest of us though.

    And yes, if a guild wants to win, it has to push people to vote. Sending out a mass ICQ or a forum post doesn't win anything because it doesn't take into account that people may not want to do it right at that moment and then later forget, or maybe they don't have time and they forget, or maybe they just don't care because the whole system seems like something 'loser rprs' only involve themselves in.

    My point is it's not simple. You want it to be simple, but it is not. You want to fling just math on the board and say "wah-lah! behold! simple! it's done!" However it is nothing like that.

    I used real life instances to back my point that you can't just say it's simple as that and will work when you leave out the whole element of how humans behave. I've seen enough of the type that say it is that simple when they really don't have any experience implementing their 'simple' deductions. I flung India, Thailand, and Indonesia in because that is where I have spent the past five+ years implementing projects and having to deal with the human element that someone left out of their projections.

    And not to mock your mis-step... but I am pretty sure they wouldn't appreciate being called third world... the phrase is emerging markets. I hope you explain that to the people you give financial, economic, and statistical advice to.


    International Project Manager

    Sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent to give you the idea that you deserve to be fired like them, but you touch a sore spot because you remind me of them, and they were always a huge pain in the arse.


    Pretty sure it gives me vastly more experience than you when it comes to guessing how guild members are going to react to mass ICQs and forum posts.

    They are similar, because it requires coordinating. Your dismissal because of the variance in time frame completely ignores that.

    Why are you discounting indifferent players? They can still have an affect, the question is how much... and that is pretty much how I summed up that the previous voting system allowed those who really cared to have more of a chance to influence the outcome than those who are indifferent.

    I'd also disagree that just because some of those players are indifferent to the election system doesn't mean that guild isn't dominant on the shard.

    Yes you do, I've clearly stated Great Lakes. This is where you would probably make a dig about reading comprehension, right? I'll on the other hand, let it slide and state again clearly, I am playing on the Great Lakes server.

    Maybe Great Lakes has been ahead of the curve the entire time, because all the tactics you mention, the shard has been employing since the first election. I guess I just assumed people on the other shards would be just as smart as those on Great Lakes.

    I have mentioned him before. Nothing has been done to him. It is easily provable, he was advertising that he was doing it in general chat. I even tested to see if he was keeping his word, and sure nuff he gave me a million gold check after I threw a vote away on him.

    We barely managed to overcome him because we held our votes until people had to go to bed on the final night. The sudden surge didn't allow him time to respond before it was over... Like I said, Great Lakes has been employing these tactics since day one.

    Woah! Seems like you do know what shard I play on! I guess you were trying to be an arse when I was being serious about having no clue what shard you are referencing your experiences from.

    They did their best. They told their members to go vote, they blasted out mass ICQs, but there was that human element again... the pleading for votes was mostly ignored, probably because their members felt they had better things to do with their time.

    How has this been made more fair? Really, you think punishing an organized person makes this more fair now? Before, it was much easier for a minority to fight the majority because a highly organized minority could somewhat counterbalance a majority from dominating the shard due to the laziness factor of the majority. It didn't mean they kept the majority out of all the cities, but it made it a lot easier for them to snag several cities. From what I can tell, you are advocating that we need to reward lazy people by giving their one vote equal to the one vote of the organized person... whereas before, the organized person had a small advantage over the lazy person. Thats interesting considering you ended one of your posts about how people who play more and do more should receive more reward!

    Honestly, to end on, I am sorry you've taken such an antagonistic approach to the discussion, and I am aware that part of it has to do with me being sore about a person you remind me of. However, I doubt this response will alleviate that since I was a smart arse about some of your smart arse responses.
     
    #34 Jerec KTM, Dec 6, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2013
  36. Tina Small

    Tina Small Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran 4H

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,539
    Likes Received:
    1,930

    Jerec, I know you sent me a PM about this and I started to reply there. But I'd rather just make the post here and be done with it.

    What I was trying to say in the post that you asked me to delete, but that I didn't make very clear, is that I think making the trade deals/buffs something you do on your own for each of your characters, instead of being something that the governors control, would have these benefits:

    • It would eliminate most of the voting issues that people are complaining about, such as the cross-shard vote solicitations.
    • It would let us be able to go back to letting each character vote in the elections (but still one vote per town per shard per account).
    • And perhaps only the people who really care about role playing would bother with elections and perhaps more people would actually take up role playing.
    However, if you get rid of the trade deals as a governor function, then you really need to add something to the governor system so they have something meaningful to do. But what you can you give them to do that doesn't also give them the means to grief other players or give themselves and their cronies a leg up on everyone else? You can't really let them do something like declare war on various towns and make the citizens of their own towns attackable in Trammel by citizens of another town. And you can't let the governors hand out favors that are actually worth anything or that give players measurable advantages over others. Nor can you really let the governors do something like faction finance ministers do when they set NPC prices in a town that their faction controls.

    So, what can you let governors do that would actually help them to be viewed as "public servants," let them help create more role playing opportunities in UO, and encourage people to donate gold and resources to the towns as a gold/resource sink? All I can really come up with is giving the governors the ability to do some decorating. But it would have to be very firmly controlled so someone who is feeling ornery doesn't just throw down awful, garish stuff "just because they can" or place items which would interfere with other players' daily routines.

    I think that the dev team, with significant help from the players, would have to come up with a set of available "town improvements" for each town. These improvements would spawn in the exact same locations and look the same in the same town on every shard. The improvements might vary by town, so if you can turn on a "town garden" in Minoc, it looks different form a "town garden" in Vesper. Or a jail in Britain looks different from a jail in Moonglow. Or an open air market might look different in Trinsic from one that is located in Skara Brae. Also, some of the improvements might have more elaborate options that cost more (a "tier 1" town garden might just have plants, a "tier 2" garden might add a bench or two, a "tier 3" garden might have a gazebo, etc.).

    The governors would be able to turn the improvements on and off as needed (depending on how much gold was available in the town treasury). There would be no need for them to pester Mesanna or the EMs to add some improvement on a temporary basis, because the governor could do it by opening up a gump on the town stone and selecting the desired option. And if there wasn't enough gold to make something available, the governor could either pony up himself or try to get people to donate. People who only want to become governor because it lets them give themselves and their friends a true benefit/advantage of some sort over other players would hopefully not meddle with the system unless they actually got bitten by the role-playing bug themselves.

    Anyway, that's what I was trying to suggest as a possible answer to some of the complaints about how the governor system has evolved up to this point. Get rid of all possibilities for people to want to become governor because they want to benefit themselves or their friends or to grief other players through the trade deal buffs AND give governors the means to try to make their towns places which people want to visit, stick around for a while and interact with other players.
     
    Jerec KTM, startle and Tanieran like this.
  37. Speranza

    Speranza Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,451
    Likes Received:
    760
    :postpics:

    <content>
    Many people play on various shards, let them eat cake! I mean let them vote!
    </content>
     
  38. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    Not so fast. You previously stated: "So lets use this guild of 40 (Guild A) and compare them against a group of 20 organized players (Group B)." Your words.

    You may not be talking about "bare majorities," but you're going to the extreme of a super-majority.


    Nonsense. The new tactics require watching votes, deciding which cities to focus on, and hoping the guild isn't outmaneuvered. The old tactics were simply "Here are six cities, go vote for these six names." I have said this time after time after time. You just don't understand it, preferring to overcomplicate things.


    What you forget is that the same scale applies to everyone else. There will always be a percentage of all players who will be disinterested in voting, for whatever reason. A guild is "dominant" depending on its interested players relative to all others. If they're 99% of all voters, they should win elections. If they're 30% or 40% of all voters, they shouldn't automatically have 30% or 40% of votes in six cities.


    It is in fact very simple. If you or others don't see it, that's just too bad. It still does not change the mathematical fact.

    If a guild has 30 or 40 voting members out of 100 total voters, they no longer have 30 or 40 automatic votes in all cities. Now they actually have to think of where to put the most votes, settling for, say, Minoc and Vesper instead of an excellent chance of


    You're again bringing up more irrelevancies of places whose people are even more irrelevant to the the topic of UO elections. You "flung" these names in an attempt to impress others, but it doesn't work on me. "Implementing projects" is a meaningless term.

    It's not a "mis-step" in the least. "Emerging markets" is a purely financial term, nor does it overlap. Not every Third World country is "emerging," or didn't you know what?



    Titles don't impress me either. I've met too many project managers, too many "Six Sigma black belts," who didn't know what to be done.

    Bzzt, no. As I said, they're entirely different things. A two-hour dungeon crawl at 8 p.m. is a far cry from a week-long UO election.

    What "coordinating" is involved in telling people, "Log in something during this week"? There is none. Now that's under the old system. Under the new system, they actually have to do something requiring thought.

    It simply means they aren't voting. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    A guild may have 50 out of a shard's 100 players, but if only 20 vote, and 40 of the others vote, then the guild is not dominant insofar as the voting in concerned. Simple, isn't it?


    Actually, no. I never had confirmation where you played. If I had inferred Great Lakes, and you didn't, you would have jumped down my throat about making assumptions.

    Now you're defending my point. That's understandable considering you don't understand it.

    Previously you wrote: "Guild A had no way of cracking the whip because at this time, there is no way of telling 1.) who is on the city stone, 2.) if they voted, and 3.) who they voted for."

    But that is not the tactic I'm talking about. Six cities, six names, easy voting.

    This is an example of one person, however. I'm talking about guilds whose voting members need only pick cities.

    Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I know or didn't know, but you brought up Great Lakes. How about you stop being what you're calling me, or are you going to violate the RoC some more?

    Don't be a jerk. Is that so much for me to ask?

    There's my point exactly: despite their numbers, they were not dominant insofar as the votes cast. A region might have 2/3 of its voters registered to a political party, but if enough of them don't go out, their candidate could very well (and deservedly) lose. As a political junkie who's watched many a campaign in addition to friends' campaigns, I've seen surprising turnouts because the dominant political group figured they had it in the bag.


    It is fair now because the old rules required no organization at all. Six cities, six names. That was all. All other voters, in whatever guilds they're in, could fight over the other three all they wanted.

    "Lazy" is your word, not mine. If someone logs on to vote, that's all that the game requires. That's why it's now equal. Now everybody must decide where to vote.

    Before, a guild with sufficient voters didn't need the GM or anyone else to think about what cities to vote in. Now they do, and they have to be just like everyone else in watching turnout, holding votes to the end, and waiting to be outmaneuvered in the last hours. Why is that still so hard for you to understand?

    Why do you think there's any problem there? None of it contradicts what I said.

    The difference now is that some large guild can't just throw six votes into whatever city it likes. That's it.

    And there you go again. I am not the one calling you names at all, RoC violations notwithstanding. You are the only one being antagonistic, when I approached your points with straightforward, logical criticisms that had no personal attacks whatsoever. You are the one bringing up irrelevancies and personal insults, insinuating I'm the kind of guy you'd fire. You are the kind of clueless, on the other hand, that I'd have quickly fired for not knowing the subject matter.
     
    #37 The Zog historian, Dec 6, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2013
  39. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    Rather than continue this love affair of tit for tat that is turning this thread into an unreadable scroll of quotes and counterpoints, I am just going to state I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you make a lot of flawed assumptions on the player base and how they were voting. I think you make a lot of flawed assumptions on how a dominant guild approached elections before by assuming they only wanted six cities. I guess time will prove who was right, much like the 2012 election where the Republicans and Democrats made different assumptions about the voting electorate.

    However, I still wish you would say what server your 'experience' is coming from.
     
    #38 Jerec KTM, Dec 6, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2013
    Krinkle likes this.
  40. Viquire

    Viquire Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,456
    Likes Received:
    507
    Sorry, I still fail to see the merit in this system for the game as a whole. It is a thing to do, yes. But we, I thought, had come a long way in making sure that rewards for current systems were more readily available to the folks interested in them to play the systems that would give the reward.

    That does not appear to be the case here. It looks like a long term mini game for which the premium reward is available only to a teeny tiny fraction of the active players, and has little if any actual merit in-game.

    What was the stated purpose in the design doc? This group of folks gets to work closely with the Devs and EMs?
     
  41. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    Or if the truth be told, your violations of the RoCs and inability to keep up with your being fisked...

    My home shard is pretty obvious, and I have stated it before. Look left. I have also stated that there is a large guild that could hold a lot of cities, but they don't.

    Now, you want to talk about experience? Until you brought up irrelevancies, I didn't feel any need to mention my involvement in real life political campaigns, and that I'm a long-time student of public choice (I doubt you ever heard of that). I could have mentioned that my best friend's father-in-law is a national party chairman, but that's irrelevant here. UO elections are not so complicated. The point is about simple math. The point is that I've caught you saying "Not once have I ever been talking about bare majorities," when in fact you talked about more than that with super-majorities. The point is that I've differentiated between mere membership and active voters, pointing out that if a guild has a large percentage of votes because nobody else bothers, then they deserve to win some seats under the new system. The point is that under the old system, they didn't need any organization or waiting like today.

    But go on. Go on with your snide little insinuations and RoC violations. Keep calling me a vulgarity that would have gotten most anyone else a ban.
     
  42. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    Well, from the original interview with Mesanna, I took that it was supposed to be a way for the players to elect representatives to a council to pass on ideas from. It was also supposed to put some power in the players hands.

    Then at some point it was changed to a RP only system... which only makes the voting change even more absurd.
     
  43. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92
    There was nothing snide in my last reply. You are just making things up now. There is nothing snide about saying your assumptions are wrong.
     
  44. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870

    Making things up? I didn't have to do anything of the kind.

    "You sound just like the number crunchers down the hall that come into a meeting with a nice powerpoint that includes their excel spreadsheets and numbers. Every time we fire one of them..."

    Your words, not mine.

    "I guess you were trying to be an arse"

    Your words, not mine.

    So much for you'd go until you're blue in the face.
     
  45. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    Nice job just sticking your head in the sand about my simple logical points you can't refute. Are you done trolling yet, or are you going to violate the RoC some more?
     
  46. Jerec KTM

    Jerec KTM Journeyman

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    92

    You do know what the phrase 'go on' means, right? I have not been 'going on'. I said my piece about how the discussion with you was taking this thread south and unreadable. It is you that has continued with the attacks. I am sorry that me saying you are wrong is making you upset, but you are wrong. All of your assumptions are flawed. I just don't know how to get you to wrap your head around that. There is no point in continuing to argue with you. I'm still sad that the five minutes I took replying to you this morning, I will never get back in my life. If you have anything useful to add to the thread, by all means, continue posting. But I will not be responding any further to accusations of me breaking the RoC or continually calling you some sort of vulgarity. I am pretty sure by now, that if I were really insinuating something so heinous about you, that I would have as you said, been banned.
     
  47. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870

    HA! I'm not the one who called you a certain word, in clear violation of the RoC that is unsurprisingly not being enforced.

    "All of your assumptions are flawed" -- such a defense gets an F grade by any standard. If they're flawed, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate how. But you can't. You've been given very simple strategies, you've been caught saying contradictory things, and all you can do is start calling me names.

    If you can't understand the simple math, well, that's just too bad. If you've been fisked at every turn, well, that's just too bad. I suggest that next time you can't defend your position with me around, then just give up earlier instead of complaining you won't get the time back. I'm replying between invasions and other things to do, and a minute here and there is no trouble for me.

    "You sound just like the number crunchers down the hall that come into a meeting with a nice powerpoint that includes their excel spreadsheets and numbers. Every time we fire one of them..."

    Your words, not mine.

    "I guess you were trying to be an arse"

    Your words, not mine.

     
  48. The Zog historian

    The Zog historian Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    870
    Now, maybe you just have a poor grasp of common English idioms, but what I said was quite clear in meaning: "But go on. Go on with your snide little insinuations and RoC violations."

    Are you just reading everything all at once and confusing different things so easily? I had written elsewhere, "So much for you'd go until you're blue in the face."

    For you had said, "And I will debate until we are both blue in the face with anyone that thinks this is making the problem smaller."

    Your words, not mine.
     
  49. Dot_Warner

    Dot_Warner Babbling Loonie
    Governor Stratics Veteran Britain [BRIT]

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    Likes Received:
    3,249
    I saw vote buying on several shards, most notably on Atl and GL, though being from GL I naturally paid more attention to the races there.

    I saw a guy running in Trinsic spamming in gen chat several times on more than one day saying he’d pay gold if someone voted for him. At first, he offered 500K but people bid him up to 1m. While it was disgusting to watch and it would be illegal in the real world, the UO ToS has no wording against it. Nor did the text of publish 81. How would this even be policed? Calling a GM? How would they enforce not selling your vote? They couldn’t and they won’t. Complaining to the EMs about “corruption” might have traction in an RP sense, but this would likely just further undermine the system in the eyes of the players.

    I’ve also seen withholding votes until the last few hours in both elections, each time the surge pushed that candidate to victory. I expect the same tactics next week.

    All the voting change has really done is to scale down the number of votes, but that doesn’t rectify slimy tactics or the fact that the system has been too narrowly targeted to RPers. If you don’t RP, being a governor really won’t interest you.

    Now, can you two put the tape measures away, zip up and play nice?
     
    MalagAste likes this.
  50. hen

    hen Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    420
    I would like to hear from both Daphnie of Moonlgow and the people who are offering cash for votes. I think they would have an interesting take on the electoral process.
     
  51. startle

    startle Siege... Where the fun begins.
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Gilfane

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,279
    Likes Received:
    1,263
    So it's one vote per account per shard, is that what this is all about?