/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

wesoda25 wrote:To be honest I feel that if a cat accidentally deletes their cat character, admins shouldn't allow them to create a new one. It adds on to the danger and rarity of the cats, and actually achieves the compromise.

This point in mind, if some wacky bug fucks the code and disables all cats, admins definitely shouldn't just blanket remove the config so everyone can go ahead and make a cat player. Checking account age should be a must, if not a list of active cat players being made atm.

So basically can we get some policies put into place considering this (specifically for admins)? Because the way I see it, its gonna be easy as fuck to bypass this compromise.

uh oh opinion time: Fellow cat haters, at first I opposed this result. At first, it seemed like a shitty "solution" that somehow manages to directly defy the vote result and it was labeled a compromise. But think about this gamers: cats are gonna go extinct. This is basically the first step to curing pollution: we've reduced pollution. Cat players will no longer be attracted to /tg/, and one by one, our current cats will die off or get banned. In 5 years, /tg/ is gonna be a beautiful place.

It's really badass how all of your posts read like parody but are actually real

I wish the felinid is fine too guy made more funny posts about the mutilated penises of the collective American population and spent less time barking up the oranges tree

I can not wait for Wesoda25's utopia /tg/station where cat ears is our own Roko's basilisk and if you type nyaa into the chatbox anyone that reads it just dies of brain failure

Arianya wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:To be honest I feel that if a cat accidentally deletes their cat character, admins shouldn't allow them to create a new one. It adds on to the danger and rarity of the cats, and actually achieves the compromise.

No.

Yes.

Arianya wrote:

wesoda25 wrote: This point in mind, if some wacky bug fucks the code and disables all cats, admins definitely shouldn't just blanket remove the config so everyone can go ahead and make a cat player. Checking account age should be a must, if not a list of active cat players being made atm.

This would be a unreasonable burden of work to put on administrators, and its relatively unlikely to happen anyway. It's just a sanity clause so that people don't lose their mind 9 months from now should it happen.

Yeah but in a way that turns it into a game of: "who can slip a bug past maintainers to fuck with character setup?". And yeah, it would take some work. I feel that's warranted, considering how different your solution is than what the majority of people voted for in the poll.

Arianya wrote:

wesoda25 wrote: So basically can we get some policies put into place considering this (specifically for admins)? Because the way I see it, its gonna be easy as fuck to bypass this compromise.

There are already policies in place. Please refer to my earlier post in this thread.

You never mentioned purgatory, ahelp/prayers for cat, etc. And what happens to admins who bypass this? Is it like nabski complaint severity or sawrge demotion severity?

UltimateGamer21 wrote:I can not wait for Wesoda25's utopia /tg/station where cat ears is our own Roko's basilisk and if you type nyaa into the chatbox anyone that reads it just dies of brain failure

Oh nooooooooooooooooooo guys ultimategamer21 dislikes my post!! Thank God admins won't delete your posts since they add so much to the conversation (yay this part of my post is protected too!!).

I liked it a lot actually it made me chuckle

ultimategamer21 is the best gamer i have ever met do not insult them they are very funny and cool

how does swarge keep his accounts organised?

oranges wrote:how does swarge keep his accounts organised?

Whilst oranges defended themselves from the torrent of hate, thy survived till a new day by rolling a 15 and being able to successfully cast magic missile in the same turn.

Has anyone asked? How are they? How do they feel about all this unwarranted hate towards them? Will they ever look back on this situation and go "Yeah that happened?" Or shall it just be another thing of the past that everyone instantly forgets?

Shadowflame909 wrote:

oranges wrote:how does swarge keep his accounts organised?

Whilst oranges defended themselves from the torrent of hate, thy survived till a new day by rolling a 15 and being able to successfully cast magic missile in the same turn.

Has anyone asked? How are they? How do they feel about all this unwarranted hate towards them? Will they ever look back on this situation and go "Yeah that happened?" Or shall it just be another thing of the past that everyone instantly forgets?

Got shot dead by nazis in a Vancouver back alley.

wesoda25 wrote:To be honest I feel that if a cat accidentally deletes their cat character, admins shouldn't allow them to create a new one. It adds on to the danger and rarity of the cats, and actually achieves the compromise.

People accidently click on the wrong thing or do something they didn't want to do? Who does that? I haven't clicked on anything I didn't want to click since the second day youtube was open. I've also never heard of anyone who makes a mistake while drunk either.

There are uncommon scenarios, such as being being unable to play as a catperson because you had catpeople mutations but not the felinid race, or rare case scenarios, like a hacker or admeme punishment, where it will fuck up the ability to be a catperson as well.

Do you really care this much about catpeople that you would be willing to go ATTENTION ALL FAGOLAS, CUCKS, AND LIGGERS! IF YOU FUCK UP EVEN ONCE THEN YOUR ASS WILL BE BLASTED FOREVER AS YOU WILL FUCKING NEVER BE WHAT YOU LIKE AGAIN. MARK MY FUCKING WORDS.

Seemed to me that the main complaint about the vote before last was the wording (remove player option to pick cat thing vs the PR's removing them from adminspawn too). If that's the case, the most recent vote should have not included "no change" at all, since that option already lost. But since it got in for some reason, hard to say that the IPC/Ether thing is rigging when cat already got two chances.

But having to compromise for what's already a compromise is pretty strange.

no change won the last vote.

confused rock wrote:no change won the last vote.

Wrong. One change won the last vote, albeit like a snail that may not even get to its food source depending on what the human at that point in time, wants the snail to reach its food.

So basically cat-girls stay and no more cat-girls will be made. But in a year or so if the new headmin wants more cat-girls. This vote will be nulled.

This is a firm draw with a slight advantage. Lol

Shadowflame909 wrote:

confused rock wrote:no change won the last vote.

Wrong. One change won the last vote, albeit like a snail that may not even get to its food source depending on what the human at that point in time, wants the snail to reach its food.

So basically cat-girls stay and no more cat-girls will be made. But in a year or so if the new headmin wants more cat-girls. This vote will be nulled.

This is a firm draw with a slight advantage. Lol

Makes sense seeing as that was the original vote result

I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

obscolene wrote:I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

Klara Ellstrom the catgirl mascot is anti-catgirl. Who would of expected this

As much as I dislike Catpeople, even I can see that this deal is a fair compromise.

We could have a hundred more polls, and every poll would fall with either a few dozen votes over the line for removing catpeople, or a few dozen votes for keeping them.

As much as I would rather the administration just pick to either permanently keep Catpeople or permanently remove them to solve the issue for all coming time, the fact is that pointing to the latest poll and saying 'X' got a few more votes than 'Y' so we must now gut/keep catpeople forever, would invariably just piss half the playerbase off and lead to more drama.

While logically I'd argue to just get rid of Catpeople since they've been nothing but a contentious source of fucking drama and the biggest shitshow /tg/station has ever seen, but that's my admittedly biased opinion.

Perhaps in 6 months to a year down the line the attitudes of the server will have sufficiently changed that we can make a final decision to remove or keep them.

Shadowflame909 wrote:

confused rock wrote:no change won the last vote.

Wrong. One change won the last vote, albeit like a snail that may not even get to its food source depending on what the human at that point in time, wants the snail to reach its food.

So basically cat-girls stay and no more cat-girls will be made. But in a year or so if the new headmin wants more cat-girls. This vote will be nulled.

This is a firm draw with a slight advantage. Lol

Go wrong yourself, the filter was off and catgirl won by like 3 votes.

confused rock wrote:

Shadowflame909 wrote:

confused rock wrote:no change won the last vote.

Wrong. One change won the last vote, albeit like a snail that may not even get to its food source depending on what the human at that point in time, wants the snail to reach its food.

So basically cat-girls stay and no more cat-girls will be made. But in a year or so if the new headmin wants more cat-girls. This vote will be nulled.

This is a firm draw with a slight advantage. Lol

Go wrong yourself, the filter was off and catgirl won by like 3 votes.

This is a firm draw with a slight advantage. No matter how you slice it.

Either cat-girls will be few and nearly non-existant in 12 months time. Or we'll get a couple pro-cat-girl admins and this entire thing will be rescinded.

It's funny how we have a political system with the main issues being: Pro erp, Anti Erp, Pro-Cat-girl, Anti-Cat-Girl.

obscolene wrote:I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

I've been saying it for years.

Shadowflame909 wrote:

oranges wrote:how does swarge keep his accounts organised?

Whilst oranges defended themselves from the torrent of hate, thy survived till a new day by rolling a 15 and being able to successfully cast magic missile in the same turn.

Has anyone asked? How are they? How do they feel about all this unwarranted hate towards them? Will they ever look back on this situation and go "Yeah that happened?" Or shall it just be another thing of the past that everyone instantly forgets?

I'm doing my best

wesoda25 wrote: Yes.

Thanks for your view, but at this time this is what the headmins have decided upon.

wesoda25 wrote: Yeah but in a way that turns it into a game of: "who can slip a bug past maintainers to fuck with character setup?". And yeah, it would take some work. I feel that's warranted, considering how different your solution is than what the majority of people voted for in the poll.

And if it were the other way it would still be a game of "who can slip a bug past maintainers to fuck with character setup?". As I've said, its pretty unlikely it'll come up in the 12 months, since generally anything that touches saves is pretty heavily scrutinized, but on the off chance it does the disabling of the config for a relatively short period would mitigate the immediate issue without making a complete shitfuck of work for admins, because at the end of the day the admins don't have to do the work if they don't want to, they're volunteers, and if they told me to go stick my busywork solution up my ass then they'd be within their rights.

wesoda25 wrote: You never mentioned purgatory, ahelp/prayers for cat, etc. And what happens to admins who bypass this? Is it like nabski complaint severity or sawrge demotion severity?

I presume by purgatory you meant purrbation. These particular facets haven't been discussed yet, but an admin making a felinid for an event has been and its fine, since its a one round thing. Bypassing the config is taken very seriously and would be a bad time for any admin, in either direction.

I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

The revelation regarding the mistaken filter came after a course of action had already been decided upon, and regardless it didn't change things severely in my view (the fact was the vote was a 50/50 split, and I dislike the simple majority thinking that suggests that 50.0001% should dictate to the 49.9999%). A compromise was suggested before the new vote was decided upon (disabled on one server, enabled on the other two), which I appreciate some people didn't like, but was still an attempt at compromise.

I think the issue a lot of people get into with this argument is that they seem to think the only stances are "pro-catgirl" or "anti-catgirl" (and I can't even tell which side you think we're "biased" towards), but the fact is I'm not headmin for either side. I'm a headmin for /tg/, which means I have to try and find solutions that make the server fun and engaging for the server's players in general, not one particular lobby. To claim we have no one's will in mind but our own is incredibly insulting, considering we spend huge amounts of our time arguing how things will affect players, administrators, code maintainers and so on and so forth.

I don't expect you to actually change your mind after reading this, it's clear that in your mind we are tainted, but you should at least be aware of how wrong the things you say are.

I think the issue a lot of people get into with this argument is that they seem to think the only stances are "pro-catgirl" or "anti-catgirl" (and I can't even tell which side you think we're "biased" towards), but the fact is I'm not headmin for either side. I'm a headmin for /tg/, which means I have to try and find solutions that make the server fun and engaging for the server's players in general, not one particular lobby. To claim we have no one's will in mind but our own is incredibly insulting, considering we spend huge amounts of our time arguing how things will affect players, administrators, code maintainers and so on and so forth.

Much emphasis on this. You'd have to be stupid to alienate a big chunk of your player base and make them go away. As I guess a section of /tg/ station only plays to be cat-girls.

Me personally, I'd of made there be no chance to get your rare and special cat-girl race back after you've lost it. It'd be a sort of special badge to flaunt if you will. make the last cat-girl players feel happy and more inclined to play once they start to disappear. As they'd be the only ones of there kind. And since there'd be no way to get them back once whatever happens. They'd be erased much faster being honest.

But, even that isn't realistic. As we'll just have another head-admin vote and be at the whims of whatever they decide about cat-girls. Maybe they think they should be a playable race again. Who knows what the future holds.

Arianya wrote:I'm not headmin for either side. I'm a headmin for /tg/

Alright, guys, pack it up. One of the headmins themselves said that the headmins are not biased.

Arianya wrote:To claim we have no one's will in mind but our own is incredibly insulting, considering we spend huge amounts of our time arguing how things will affect players, administrators, code maintainers and so on and so forth.

THEY DO IT FOR FREE

obscolene wrote:I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

Catgirls lost by less than 20 votes, not 60. They lost by about 80 "points", because that's how an IRV poll works... everyone's vote counts for x amount of points.
They also lost by less than 20 votes in a poll that was rigged for them to lose. If you remove the etherals bribery option they would have won in a landslide, according to the results.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

obscolene wrote:I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

Catgirls lost by less than 20 votes, not 60. They lost by about 80 "points", because that's how an IRV poll works... everyone's vote counts for x amount of points.
They also lost by less than 20 votes in a poll that was rigged for them to lose. If you remove the etherals bribery option they would have won in a landslide, according to the results.

Nope, that would just remove EVERYONE that voted for ethereals as first pick from the vote COMPLETELY. Of course cats would win in a landslide if their opponents are removed. What you would need to do is re-do the results without the ethereal option, which you need the data to do

somerandomguy wrote:

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

obscolene wrote:I like how when catpeople win by 6 votes, there is no compromise whatsoever. But when removal wins by 60 votes, catpeople don't even fucking get removed. I'm still waiting for the headmins to admit they're biased assholes who have nobody's will in mind but their own. What a fucking embarrassment.

Catgirls lost by less than 20 votes, not 60. They lost by about 80 "points", because that's how an IRV poll works... everyone's vote counts for x amount of points.
They also lost by less than 20 votes in a poll that was rigged for them to lose. If you remove the etherals bribery option they would have won in a landslide, according to the results.

Nope, that would just remove EVERYONE that voted for ethereals as first pick from the vote COMPLETELY. Of course cats would win in a landslide if their opponents are removed. What you would need to do is re-do the results without the ethereal option, which you need the data to do

I’m pretty sure MSO could show the results if IPC and ethereal weren’t ever vote options

Can you get off this rigging bullshit already? It was funny to start but now it's just pathetic when cats got such a favorable compromise.
In terms of the actual compromise, I can't say I'm too happy with it but I also think it's probably the least inflammatory move to make. Which, while less juicy and popcorn worthy, is probably the smarter choice to make. It was a mistake to ever add them but now that they're here we're now stuck with complicated political drama over ears and a tail.

actioninja wrote:Can you get off this rigging bullshit already? It was funny to start but now it's just pathetic when cats got such a favorable compromise.

Your subjective judgement of the compromise does not change that the poll was factually rigged and nothing should have been done based on the tainted results.

By the way, you can't actually "fix" the poll by removing the "Remove felinids and I add <x> enticing race" bribery options, regardless of who is doing it, because you have no way of telling how those removed votes would have voted if that option had not existed. The poll is irreversibly tainted.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

actioninja wrote:Can you get off this rigging bullshit already? It was funny to start but now it's just pathetic when cats got such a favorable compromise.

Your subjective judgement of the compromise does not change that the poll was factually rigged and nothing should have been done based on the tainted results.

By the way, you can't actually "fix" the poll by removing the "Remove felinids and I add <x> enticing race" bribery options, regardless of who is doing it, because you have no way of telling how those removed votes would have voted if that option had not existed. The poll is irreversibly tainted.

t. has no idea how IRV works
You already vote on ALL of them so it's easy to see what it would be without it IF you have the dataset (which only some people have)

somerandomguy wrote: You already vote on ALL of them so it's easy to see what it would be without it IF you have the dataset (which only some people have)

This doesn't fix the vote, and you can see what it would be without the data, which is a felinid win.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

somerandomguy wrote: You already vote on ALL of them so it's easy to see what it would be without it IF you have the dataset (which only some people have)

This doesn't fix the vote, and you can see what it would be without the data, which is a felinid win.

Ok. Let me explain this to you. With IRV polls you order your choices from favorite option to least favorite. If your favorite choice is eliminated it goes to your next favorite available choice. This means that if you have all the data you could simply remove any options you don’t want and see what the results would have been. This means the vote is not irreversibly tainted.

Let’s say you have someone who “accepted the bribe” and voted for remove cats add ethereals. Their second favorite choice was to keep cats. If you remove the choices you don’t want (IPC and ethereal) then it becomes a vote on whether you want cats, want them to be adminspawn only, or want to remove catss entirely

Also, any proof to back up your claim that this would have been a felinid win?

NoxVS wrote: ...

It isn't this simple, because people don't only rank their choices from favorite option to least favorite, there are also "observer bias"-like elements involved. In the other thread someone was talking about how they put etherals in the #1 place, even though they do not want etherals added, because they knew it was the best chance to get felinids removed.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

somerandomguy wrote: You already vote on ALL of them so it's easy to see what it would be without it IF you have the dataset (which only some people have)

This doesn't fix the vote, and you can see what it would be without the data, which is a felinid win.

i genuinely can't take you serious until you stop hiding behind that dumb username.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote: ...

It isn't this simple, because people don't only rank their choices from favorite option to least favorite, there are also "observer bias"-like elements involved. In the other thread someone was talking about how they put etherals in the #1 place, even though they do not want etherals added, because they knew it was the best chance to get felinids removed.

also can you fucking grasp how IRV works already or what

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote: ...

It isn't this simple, because people don't only rank their choices from favorite option to least favorite, there are also "observer bias"-like elements involved. In the other thread someone was talking about how they put etherals in the #1 place, even though they do not want etherals added, because they knew it was the best chance to get felinids removed.

>observer bias
Good one
Also they're wrong too, seeing how IRV works

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote: ...

It isn't this simple, because people don't only rank their choices from favorite option to least favorite, there are also "observer bias"-like elements involved. In the other thread someone was talking about how they put etherals in the #1 place, even though they do not want etherals added, because they knew it was the best chance to get felinids removed.

The poll had you order your options from favorite to least favorite. It’s not the polls fault that people are too stupid to understand how to order choices depending on how much you like or dislike the option.

Here’s how the poll worked. The option with the least votes gets eliminated. The votes then go towards the second option all the voters chose. So if you manually remove the “bribe options put in place by the evil oranges to taint the vote” then all the people who voted for it instead have it go to their second or third options. Meaning it’s a vote solely on if you want cats, don’t want them, or want them to be admin spawn only.

So let’s say you want cats but you wanted ethereals more so you voted to remove cats and add ethereals. Since you had keep cats as your second option your vote would go towards keeping cats if the ethereal vote is eliminated. And if you voted ethereal but mainly just wanted cats gone, your vote goes to removing cats.

Meaning the vote isn’t tainted. Because you can remove the ethereal and IPC options. And see what they would have voted for if those options hadn’t existed. This is of course assuming it’s possible to look at the data and do this which I think is possible but I am not entirely sure.

NoxVS wrote: It’s not the polls fault that people are too stupid to understand how to order choices depending on how much you like or dislike the option.

It actually is the poll's fault (I mean it's not the weather's fault and you could construct a poll that would be immune to this issue) but anyway, fault is irrelevant and it's a reality that it did happen that way

It is likely that the poll is less tainted than if it was a non-IRV poll but it's still (more subtly) tainted

I feel like it's not obvious what I'm talking about so let me be more clear

Here’s how the poll worked. The option with the least votes gets eliminated. The votes then go towards the second option all the voters chose. So if you manually remove the “bribe options put in place by the evil oranges to taint the vote” then all the people who voted for it instead have it go to their second or third options. Meaning it’s a vote solely on if you want cats, don’t want them, or want them to be admin spawn only.

This is all right, but what you aren't seeing is that when you erase those tainted options from the poll, it does not change that the voters saw them and that they influenced their voting decisions (often in unpredictable ways, like the case I mentioned above)

You really cannot totally remove the bias without a new poll

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote: It’s not the polls fault that people are too stupid to understand how to order choices depending on how much you like or dislike the option.

It It is likely that the poll is less tainted than if it was a non-IRV poll but it's still (more subtly) tainted

How would it be tainted. It would literally be a yes/no at that point. How do you taint “do you want cats? yes or no”

NoxVS wrote:

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote: It’s not the polls fault that people are too stupid to understand how to order choices depending on how much you like or dislike the option.

It It is likely that the poll is less tainted than if it was a non-IRV poll but it's still (more subtly) tainted

How would it be tainted. It would literally be a yes/no at that point. How do you taint “do you want cats? yes or no”

Because it's a "yes/no" containing votes that were affected by the presence of now-removed options, since people are not obligated to follow the "Order options from most liked to least liked" instructions of an IRV poll

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote:

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

NoxVS wrote: It’s not the polls fault that people are too stupid to understand how to order choices depending on how much you like or dislike the option.

It It is likely that the poll is less tainted than if it was a non-IRV poll but it's still (more subtly) tainted

How would it be tainted. It would literally be a yes/no at that point. How do you taint “do you want cats? yes or no”

Because it's a "yes/no" containing votes that were affected by the presence of now-removed options, since people are not obligated to follow the "Order options from most liked to least liked" instructions of an IRV poll

Well those people are morons who can’t follow simple instructions and likely part of a minority who shouldn’t be catered too.

So part of this drama is due to the poll containing Double Barrel questions, which is a big no no for IRV.

This become more problematic since the IRV contained 4 against and 1 for choice. Mathematically it meant that it was inevitable for a against choice to win since 3 of the 4 against included double barrel options.

It should be telling that the sole pro option lasted until the final round.

delaron wrote:So part of this drama is due to the poll containing Double Barrel questions, which is a big no no for IRV.

This become more problematic since the IRV contained 4 against and 1 for choice. Mathematically it meant that it was inevitable for a against choice to win since 3 of the 4 against included double barrel options.

It should be telling that the sole pro option lasted until the final round.

Also why was there not a option to null vote remaining options? A none of the above/remaining if you will. Then mark the winning vote as requiring a percentage of valid votes. Normal bar is 50%

1. preferred option
2. agreeable option
3. I dont like anything after these two so stop adding my vote.

-Winning vote would need 50% of total votes to be considered the "winning vote"

But the major issue was again the Double Barrel reward bias.

Since some are attacking the person bringing part of this up as an alt account I figure it may be easier to express a similar point as someone with no alt accounts.

If you eliminate the etherals option in the first round (redistributing it's votes to the other preferred options in the order people select), removal still wins post filtering for playtime and it's still close so we'd still implement a compromise matching the one in the OP

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:

subject217 wrote:Hello digg!

actually a serious post: when one choice wins by a relatively slim margin, going "all the way" with it will piss off far more people than a compromise, all you delusional redditoids were never going to get anything better than this really

That's right, you have to make everyone unhappy. That's why when the presidential candidate wins with a 51% majority they only make him kinda-president.
Also, on the ballot, the options look like this:

1) Elect George
2) Elect Bob
3) Elect Jim and you get a new car (only guaranteed if you elect Jim though)

Late reply, but I forgot to make an important point here.

Everything about this 2nd poll was 100% headmin sanctioned from start to finish. Every single option that was offered in the poll was reviewed and approved by every headmin. It's the headmins' responsibility to see that the poll was unbiased. Make of that what you will.

It's not even biased, people are just looking for any angle to try to change the outcome, it's getting very silly now because every single thing raised has been comprehensively proven incorrect, wrong or just outright misleading.

The point is that oranges wasn't the sole arbiter of the voting options that afelinidisfinetoo is so mad about - they were collectively discussed and individually approved by all headmins.

Maybe the real removal of felinids was the friends we made along the way

Just for completeness's sake and just to shut people up even more, I asked mso to change the code so I can filter both of those options out at the first step, redistributing their votes as per the priority order people selected.




See, no amount of so called "bribery" was going to change the outcome at any point, all it did was allow people to express that they were still interested in new races and wanted to trade, which is a perfectly reasonable thing and exactly what this poll option was supposed to indicate.

oranges wrote:...

You cannot just remove the bribery options from the poll and in doing so erase their impact on it. See the conversation chain just a few posts above you.
Also, whether or not the bribery options affected the poll (they did) is irrelevant to the fact that they are bribery, you knew they were bribery, and you tried to sweeten the bribery by making it as clear as possible that etherals would *only* get a guaranteed merge if felinids lost the poll.

delaron wrote: Also why was there not a option to null vote remaining options? A none of the above/remaining if you will. Then mark the winning vote as requiring a percentage of valid votes. Normal bar is 50%

THe whole point of the poll is to be decisive, the null vote (or the vote for the status quo) was to vote for no removal, that's explictly the null vote, the rest are expressions of what kind of change from the status quo you might want to see.

Adding extra null vote options beyond that point both defeats the point of having a decisive poll and makes the voting result unclear for absolutely no benefit.