A Petition To Bring Back Old Voting

[4non]

ME

 

[Kieee]

I sign I agree!

 

[spencer54325]

I spencer54325 'sign' this petition
Man, i miss /skip/rnd/random

 

[Mark / TNTime12]

I, agree that the old voting system should come back.

 

[Ag | Alex]

I don't know who the hell decided it was a good idea to implement it. IMO it is the worse than Satan. If no one votes for the map, it means no one wants to play it. So when Destiny's Shiver has a 5% chance and sg4 has a 95% chance, when Destiny's Shiver wins, people get mad. I really want someone to tell me, in what way did this help?

 

[Mark / TNTime12]

I don't know who the hell decided it was a good idea to implement it. IMO it is the worse than Satan. If no one votes for the map, it means no one wants to play it. So when Destiny's Shiver has a 5% chance and sg4 has a 95% chance, when Destiny's Shiver wins, people get mad. I really want someone to tell me, in what way did this help?

The thread that suggested this idea: http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/an-alternative-voting-system-raffle-voting.80423/.

 

[Nintendonuts]

But this isn't a presidency, nor should it be thought of that way. The point is to make everyone happy right? This way, everyone gets the chance to be happy. The more people want it, the more they will get it.

There can't be no perfect analogy, but it's still similar. Even though presidency is more important than what map you want to be chosen in a video game.

 

[ITsMeTYL3R]

I

 

[Tacoface1234]

It's like an election, would they give presidency to the most voted person? or would they give percentages for each president to get elected depending on how many votes they received?

Well, assuming you are talking about the US, they would take a vote from each state to choose the electors (with the number of electors varying based on the amount of representatives the state has) and then the electors get to choose who the president is based on their vote.

I think that's what theo means when he says it's a bad comparison, as the system outlined above has no relevance to our voting system, before or after the change.

Here is my best go at an analogy. Ten kids are playing at the park. six kids want to play soccer, four wish to play kickball. Of course they will end up playing more soccer, since most of the kids want that, but shouldn't the other four get a chance to play kickball too? That way, everyone gets to play their favorite game, but the favorite game of the minority isn't played quite so much as the favorite of the majority.

 

[qwErtyVAsdfghN]

I

 

[Nintendonuts]

Well, assuming you are talking about the US, they would take a vote from each state to choose the electors (with the number of electors varying based on the amount of representatives the state has) and then the electors get to choose who the president is based on their vote.

I think that's what theo means when he says it's a bad comparison, as the system outlined above has no relevance to our voting system, before or after the change.

Here is my best go at an analogy. Ten kids are playing at the park. six kids want to play soccer, four wish to play kickball. Of course they will end up playing more soccer, since most of the kids want that, but shouldn't the other four get a chance to play kickball too? That way, everyone gets to play their favorite game, but the favorite game of the minority isn't played quite so much as the favorite of the majority.

Yeah, that's one part that makes Raffle Voting good, but the part that I think everyone is upset about is the chance that a map can be picked with a low amount of votes. Say 23 people want Holiday Resort, and 1 person wants Survival Games 3, it's around a 5% chance that SG3 will get picked, which is absurd because no one except that one person wants SG3. At least make it have a chance after a certain number of votes, like if it's over 5 votes there can be a chance of getting picked, not a 5% chance of getting pick from a single vote.

 

[Tacoface1234]

Yeah, that's one part that makes Raffle Voting good, but the part that I think everyone is upset about is the chance that a map can be picked with a low amount of votes. Say 23 people want Holiday Resort, and 1 person wants Survival Games 3, it's around a 5% chance that SG3 will get picked, which is absurd because no one except that one person wants SG3. At least make it have a chance after a certain number of votes, like if it's over 5 votes there can be a chance of getting picked, not a 5% chance of getting pick from a single vote.

Yeah, I can definitely sympathize with that complaint, and perhaps that suggestion has merit. Though, any percent lower than 1/4 is just so unlikely to be picked, it seems like a very minor issue. If you think about it, as long as just one person each game wants sg3 (and sg3 is on voting for every game) that's as you said, a 5% chance. If you played 20 games in a row under these conditions, chances are you would only have one game where sg3 wins, and it's entirely possible you would play all 20 without it winning even once.

With that in mind, I don't really see much need in the "over five votes" adjustment. Barring an extremely lucky dice roll, that 5% map isn't gonna get played unless a chunk of the server wants it. If a chunk of the server wants it, then my analogy above applies.