Unknown2008-01-01 22:33:54
I like it. What do *you* think
Eldanien2008-01-01 22:38:19
Sounds alright, though I hope vote weight builds and fades slowly.
Estarra2008-01-01 22:40:46
QUOTE(Eldanien @ Jan 1 2008, 02:38 PM) 471856
Sounds alright, though I hope vote weight builds and fades slowly.
The weight is basically based on your average activity level over the past month, so yes it does.
Unknown2008-01-01 22:41:09
How does the number work? Does it mean that's the number of votes you have in any kind of election? So if you have a vote number of 10, whoever/whatever you vote for gets 10 votes?
Estarra2008-01-01 22:42:29
QUOTE(Fireweaver @ Jan 1 2008, 02:41 PM) 471858
How does the number work? Does it mean that's the number of votes you have in any kind of election? So if you have a vote number of 10, whoever/whatever you vote for gets 10 votes?
Yes, you can look at it that way.
Eldanien2008-01-01 22:46:22
Just so we're all on the same page...
QUOTE
ANNOUNCE NEWS #978
Date: 1/1/2008 at 21:45
From: Estarra, the Eternal
To : Everyone
Subj: Weighted Elections
There has been several concerns regarding elections being "rigged"
insofar as there have been accusations of inactive or rarely active
players suddenly logging in to vote. We have been wrestling with the
best way to handle this issues, and have decided to have votes weighted
according to the activity level of the voter.
What this means is that your vote is weighted based on how often and how
long you are log in over time. Thus, the votes of players who are active
have a greater weight than those who are not. The vote weight ranges
from 1 to 10 (you may see the weight of your vote on STATUS). We have
run a lot of analysis to determine the best way to weight votes. As it
is, over 60% of active players will have their votes weighted in the
range of 5-10. Over 75% of active players will have their votes in the
range of 4-10.
We feel this is a fair and elegant solution as it certainly makes sense
to have those players most active and engaged in Lusternia to have the
greatest voice in elections. This is in effect immediately and we will
be monitoring elections to see how the voting weight plays out.
Penned by My hand on the 5th of Roarkian, in the year 194 CE.
Date: 1/1/2008 at 21:45
From: Estarra, the Eternal
To : Everyone
Subj: Weighted Elections
There has been several concerns regarding elections being "rigged"
insofar as there have been accusations of inactive or rarely active
players suddenly logging in to vote. We have been wrestling with the
best way to handle this issues, and have decided to have votes weighted
according to the activity level of the voter.
What this means is that your vote is weighted based on how often and how
long you are log in over time. Thus, the votes of players who are active
have a greater weight than those who are not. The vote weight ranges
from 1 to 10 (you may see the weight of your vote on STATUS). We have
run a lot of analysis to determine the best way to weight votes. As it
is, over 60% of active players will have their votes weighted in the
range of 5-10. Over 75% of active players will have their votes in the
range of 4-10.
We feel this is a fair and elegant solution as it certainly makes sense
to have those players most active and engaged in Lusternia to have the
greatest voice in elections. This is in effect immediately and we will
be monitoring elections to see how the voting weight plays out.
Penned by My hand on the 5th of Roarkian, in the year 194 CE.
Verithrax2008-01-01 22:48:11
How much activity is necessary for a vote worth 10? It does seem, to me, that it may be too much. Also, this favours some styles of play over others (People more involved in politics and roleplay than combat, for example, tend to bash less and thus are logged in for shorter lengths of time, but more often.)
Arix2008-01-01 22:49:25
ooh, vote weight 8
Unknown2008-01-01 23:13:09
A couple of questions for Estarra:
I personally sort of imagined this system as a linear summing. Is the difference in weights a linear thing, or is it diminishing returns? I.e. is the difference between a 10 and a 9 the same as the difference between a 5 and a 4?
As an extension of that, if it is just a sum(I.e. Bob gets a vote from a 10, a 3, and a 7, he has 20 'votes'), will that weight be displayed at the end of the election or will it still just be number of votes?
I personally sort of imagined this system as a linear summing. Is the difference in weights a linear thing, or is it diminishing returns? I.e. is the difference between a 10 and a 9 the same as the difference between a 5 and a 4?
As an extension of that, if it is just a sum(I.e. Bob gets a vote from a 10, a 3, and a 7, he has 20 'votes'), will that weight be displayed at the end of the election or will it still just be number of votes?
Estarra2008-01-01 23:13:53
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Jan 1 2008, 02:48 PM) 471863
How much activity is necessary for a vote worth 10? It does seem, to me, that it may be too much. Also, this favours some styles of play over others (People more involved in politics and roleplay than combat, for example, tend to bash less and thus are logged in for shorter lengths of time, but more often.)
Those who seem to always be here will basically have a weight of 10. Those with a weight of 4-6 are your average active player who averages around 5-15 hours per week. So, yes, those who are extremely active will have the vote weight of about two average active players. Yes, this allows extremely active players to have more weight but I do not feel it is unduly or unfairly out of proportion.
Estarra2008-01-01 23:15:56
QUOTE(Visaeris Maeloch @ Jan 1 2008, 03:13 PM) 471870
I personally sort of imagined this system as a linear summing. Is the difference in weights a linear thing, or is it diminishing returns? I.e. is the difference between a 10 and a 9 the same as the difference between a 5 and a 4?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
QUOTE(Visaeris Maeloch @ Jan 1 2008, 03:13 PM) 471870
As an extension of that, if it is just a sum(I.e. Bob gets a vote from a 10, a 3, and a 7, he has 20 'votes'), will that weight be displayed at the end of the election or will it still just be number of votes?
Yes, it would display the weighted votes.
Unknown2008-01-01 23:19:11
Is it possible to have instead some type of system that will just vote based on the account and the name of the person? I realize that not everyone is honest about this, but the system requires you to register your accounts and it seems to me that if you have all your chars registered to one account, don't you think that it would be able to have a vote per person OOC? *shrugs*
I don't know... it seems a bit more fair, though with this current system at least you would be able to get rid of any type of thing like this happening period.
I don't know... it seems a bit more fair, though with this current system at least you would be able to get rid of any type of thing like this happening period.
Myndaen2008-01-01 23:21:23
QUOTE(Rian @ Jan 1 2008, 06:19 PM) 471876
Is it possible to have instead some type of system that will just vote based on the account and the name of the person? I realize that not everyone is honest about this, but the system requires you to register your accounts and it seems to me that if you have all your chars registered to one account, don't you think that it would be able to have a vote per person OOC? *shrugs*
I don't know... it seems a bit more fair, though with this current system at least you would be able to get rid of any type of thing like this happening period.
I don't know... it seems a bit more fair, though with this current system at least you would be able to get rid of any type of thing like this happening period.
What if you create one of every guild, and then just play your main? I don't think that's any better than what's going on before they implemented this. :/
Estarra2008-01-01 23:22:27
QUOTE(Rian @ Jan 1 2008, 03:19 PM) 471876
Is it possible to have instead some type of system that will just vote based on the account and the name of the person? I realize that not everyone is honest about this, but the system requires you to register your accounts and it seems to me that if you have all your chars registered to one account, don't you think that it would be able to have a vote per person OOC? *shrugs*
I don't know... it seems a bit more fair, though with this current system at least you would be able to get rid of any type of thing like this happening period.
I don't know... it seems a bit more fair, though with this current system at least you would be able to get rid of any type of thing like this happening period.
No, and I don't think it is at all fair. If you spend 95% of your time on a nihilist character, and hardly any time at all on your hartstone character, why should your hartstone druid have the same vote weight as your nihilist character? Your time, energy and focus is engaged as the nihilist, not the hartstone druid.
EDIT: And further, if you had multiple nihilist characters, that means you'd be able to grossly sway elections!
Unknown2008-01-01 23:22:56
QUOTE(Estarra @ Jan 1 2008, 03:15 PM) 471874
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Like is there an exponential advantage to having a 10 over a 9, beyond just that "one vote", or are weights just a fancy way of saying: Player (X) gets 10 votes, player (Y) gets 3 votes. Is it like DMP where more overall weight gives you less of a bonus per individual point, or is each point of 'weight' worth the same.
Estarra2008-01-01 23:24:57
QUOTE(Visaeris Maeloch @ Jan 1 2008, 03:22 PM) 471879
Like is there an exponential advantage to having a 10 over a 9, beyond just that "one vote", or are weights just a fancy way of saying: Player (X) gets 10 votes, player (Y) gets 3 votes. Is it like DMP where more overall weight gives you less of a bonus per individual point, or is each point of 'weight' worth the same.
Gotcha. It is not exponential.
Eldanien2008-01-01 23:38:28
If this doesn't exist, I might suggest an in-built tiebreaker system, counting up individual voters rather than vote weight.
IE, option 1 gets five votes for a total vote weight of 32, option 2 gets six votes for a total vote weight of 32. Option 2 wins.
IE, option 1 gets five votes for a total vote weight of 32, option 2 gets six votes for a total vote weight of 32. Option 2 wins.
Unknown2008-01-01 23:40:19
It's about time. People who are long-term inactive or have retired from Lusternia but are willing to come in to preserve a culture they have no more participation in or to assist their OOC friends should be nullified without having them jump through hoops to do so.
Arix2008-01-01 23:44:33
So basicly, instead of people bribing ten inactive people to come vote, they can save money and bribe two or three highly active people instead
Unknown2008-01-01 23:45:11
QUOTE(Arix @ Jan 1 2008, 03:44 PM) 471888
So basicly, instead of people bribing ten inactive people to come vote, they can save money and bribe two or three highly active people instead
You tap your fingers together and murmur, "Excellent..."
