Auto-translated
Let's set up a poll to see if multiple choices are needed:D
Posts from Voting for the location of the CIS-2107 tournament.
Closed
Location for CIS 2017 Heroes III tournament
58
voters
Single choice
Public votes
Closed
2017-02-05
This poll is closed.
Yekaterinburg
37.9%
22 votes
Volgograd
34.5%
20 votes
I’ll go either way; it doesn’t matter which one
1.7%
1 vote
I’m not going to CIS
25.9%
15 votes
злой_романтик
Auto-translated
Let's set up a poll, do we need multiple choices or not?
296524052
Весна 2012.
Весна 2012.
=Stinger=
Auto-translated
As I mentioned, Asm and Romantic are in favor of multiple choices.
Merlin is against multiple choices.
But the total points of Asm + Romantic > Merlin's points.
Therefore, multiple choices are definitely the way to go.
:smile20:
MerlinTheMagician
Auto-translated
I want to be understood correctly; I support the idea of dividing the weight of votes, I just ask to make it more realistic.
Added 2 minutes ago
What does 1/3 of the votes have to do with it? I still don't understand.
Added 3 minutes ago
PS I am also a moderator, like Kirill, and you won't be able to ignore me either, and I can give penalty points for spamming ;)
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
Auto-translated
Before you start posting irrelevant comments in an inappropriate thread, you should look at how these polls were conducted in the past, in previous years.
But, by the way, in this specific case, I somehow think that the CIS vote won't result in a 1/3 outcome. Merlin is right to stir things up about the deadlines. Faster, faster! Tickets, tickets! He's right about that. And he's not the only one saying it! But there probably won't be any problems with the voting. If Korolev brings the application to a good standard, he has a good chance of winning. All the objective factors (that come to my mind) are in his favor:
- Moscow hasn't hosted the CIS event before (the principle of different locations)
- Location on the CIS map, ease of access (transport hub and all that)
- Size of the city and entertainment prospects (it's basically Moscow)
- Estimated price
- The organizer's personality.
Even as a person who wants (based on my own ideas) everything to be good in the Heroes community, I would like such an option to at least have a real chance.
злой_романтик
Auto-translated
It seems that this is an analogy to a presidential election: regardless of the number of rounds, the winner must be determined by 50+% of the total number of votes (in our case, the same number of points). And such a scenario regarding the selection of the city to host the CIS event would be more objective.
296524052
Весна 2012.
Весна 2012.
MerlinTheMagician
Auto-translated
Thus it turns out that ALL the votes that took place on HeroesWorld before are illegitimate, because when choosing from 3 or more options, none of the options ever garnered 50+ percent.
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
злой_романтик
Auto-translated
I wasn't spamming; I was expressing my opinion on the given topic. A victory with only 1/3 of the votes doesn't seem convincing. Whether it's Player of the Year or the location for the CIS event. Considering the weight of my vote, my opinion was strictly on the topic. I already knew (you can guess from where? :D) that you're a moderator and I can't ignore you.
Approximately...
296524052
Весна 2012.
Весна 2012.
Dirty_Player
Auto-translated
limit the maximum points for a single vote to 2 (it was 2 or more in version 2).
Not attended any CIS events - 0.5
Attended 1 CIS event - 1
Attended 2 or more CIS events - 2
It's simple, clear, and avoids significant imbalances. Multiple choices are needed for a smoother distribution of votes. If someone wants to attend point A or B, but not C, they should be able to vote that way, rather than choosing the option that scores higher just to prevent C from winning.
Hiwanna
Auto-translated
I support Kosti's idea; I was actually going to suggest the same thing.
twitch.tv/hiwanna
Wicc
Auto-translated
The idea of giving different weights to the votes of different players seems unsuccessful to me.
The community lives and develops as long as there is a constant influx of new participants. But if newcomers are immediately told, "your opinion is not very important to us," then enthusiasm noticeably decreases.
In my opinion, it should be exactly the opposite - "we are glad to have all participants." The fact that some percentage of newcomers will drop out in the process is normal. Experienced players also sometimes drop out at the last moment.
Therefore, I propose the following system for counting votes:
tournament participant = 1 vote
tournament viewer = 0.5 votes
If the problem of attendance is really relevant, then introduce a prepayment - something like 20% of the accommodation cost. Accordingly, all those who voted for a specific option agree to make a prepayment. For example, within a week after the voting results are approved.
MerlinTheMagician
Auto-translated
Yes, a multi-choice option would be possible.
However, voting should automatically obligate the voter to participate if the winning proposal is selected, so as not to be seen as unreliable. Otherwise, I repeat, the fate of the CIS region will be decided by a bunch of unknowns (and even some known names) who didn't even intend to participate.
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
злой_романтик
Auto-translated
Therefore, I suggest the following system for counting votes:
tournament participant = 1 vote
tournament viewer = 0.5 votes
296524052
Весна 2012.
Весна 2012.
=Stinger=
Auto-translated
I think the idea of giving different weights to the votes of different players is a bad one. The community lives and develops as long as there is a constant influx of new participants. But if newcomers are immediately told "your opinion is not very important to us," their enthusiasm will noticeably decrease. In my opinion, it should be exactly the opposite - "we are glad to have all participants." The fact that some percentage of newcomers will drop out in the process is just something that happens. Even veterans sometimes drop out at the last moment. Therefore, I propose the following system for counting votes: tournament participant = 1 vote tournament viewer = 0.5 votes If the problem of attendance is really relevant, then introduce a prepayment - something like 20% of the accommodation cost. Accordingly, all those who voted for a specific option agree to make a prepayment. For example, within a week after the voting results are approved.
I completely agree. I already wrote to Merlin that I am strongly against points. I remember the first CIS tournaments, when it was difficult to earn even a little trust in their organization/status, and everyone wanted the event to become massive and to attract more and more new participants/viewers every year.
Auto-translated
I think the idea of giving different weights to the voices of different players is a bad one.
The community lives and develops as long as there is a constant influx of new participants. And if newcomers are immediately told "your opinion is not very important to us," then enthusiasm noticeably decreases.
Your irony offends people without a sense of humor, and your subtext violates the rights of the stupid. Be tolerant - only say obvious things and only with a serious face.