Right but in reality it would be more like 5x1 3x2 and 4x3..

Hey, I like it. I'm not sure what kind of effect it will have (will this concentrate power among the people who are always on, and is this a bad thing?), and am mildly curious about the weighting and large numerical range involved (is someone who spends all their time on really worth twice as much as a 15-hour-a-week player?), but I definitely like it. Thanks for putting this in!

Oh, right, I was supposed to write a long, sarcastic paragraph about how I hate this change. Please ignore the previous, generally positive collection of statements and substitute a scathing negativity of your choosing.

This sounds like a great change.

As for 1-3 vs 1-10, I think it matters more for those who are active than people who are dormant. My figures from Hartstone elections when I was Hierophant seemed to be about 3-4 inactive players voting, which won't sway the 15+ active voters much, even with a narrower range.

I have no problem with bribery, I just don't want it to be too easy

My opinion falls in line with this. I'm a GA, now coming in long enough to handle everything (hopefully), do a few administrative things, and then log out. I don't have enough time to bash or pvp, or just sit around and idly chat with people all day. Thus, I only have a weight of 5...

I definitely think people who hold positions should get some sort of boost to their weight (maybe +3 to GM/GA/GC, +2 to Security/Sec, +1 to Prot/Undersec, never to exceed 10?), as we're the ones who supposedly are contributing consistently to the administrative aspect of the guild.

To put it another way, I completely disagree that a person who logs in just long enough to complete all administrative duties to a reasonably acceptable level (which takes MUCH less time than bashing) shouldn't have just as much influence in the guild's elections as the one who's gr1 but bashes 10 hours a day.

How often do you re-calculate voting weight?

sence gr1's cant vote you do have a higher weight!

I have a vote rank of 9.

Sweet.

I need gold for my manse and I'm an active player. Find me IG if you have a stake in Glom politics.


This is basically how I play lately. It is probably atypical, but it happens. I do agree a 1-5 scale might be more fair that 1-10, but we'll see how things work out.


I think the announce said once a month?

If it does, I can't see it.

oooh, the alt army won't have a choke hold on Magnagoran elections.

You have a vote weight of 1.

shiiiiitake. (mushrooms)

So I think it constantly changes.

Yeah, which makes me wonder when does the weight counts, on the month you vote, or on the month the elections close

I never thought people in an administrative position should get an advantage; just that after some point, it's pointless (And, I think, even damaging) to give people even more vote weight. The playerbase can be broken up into active, marginally active, and inactive-but-still-invested. The latter are the ones who break elections; there's no point in punishing players who aren't enormously active for being "inactive" compared to some arbitrary standard of high activity that very few people in-game will ever attain. It's very simple to just normalise the scale so that a majority of people have the highest vote weight, the keeping active players equal while lowering the influence of inactive players (Obviously that normalisation would ignore players that have been entirely inactive for, say, a month - those people would have a vote weight of zero.)

You do realise that doing this would unbalance -any- election that would ever go through the system I hope?

You'd basically be giving the one being challenged a starting bonus, even more so in the position of administrator, who appoints the secretaries. In other words, doing this would make fair elections completely and utterly impossible, not to mention that it is easily abusable by just appointing a few more 'secretaries' that just 'happened' to have voted for you just before the election runs out. I'm sorry to say it but this suggestion is much more broken than the problem of inactive people coming on once to place an extra vote in.

I like the vote weighting system. It makes senses and seems fair. Before, people would get all their friends who dont play anymore to sign on and vote, or use inactive alts. I give it a

What happened to you! You were a nice person... once.

So what happens if you vote when you have a vote rating of 1, then in the coming days you play a lot and your vote weight goes to 10. Subsequently, the election closes. Does your vote count for 1 (as it did when you voted) or does it count for 10 (your weight when the election ended)? Would this person have to re-cast their vote?

I don't think there's time for you to go from 1 to 10 during an election.