ITC ruling poll is up!

[Jayne_Cobbb]

Pax, are you just arguing this for the sake of it?

 

Seriously. Howling Banshees are terribad. One of two bad non HQ units in the codex.

[Lord Hanaur]

I'm not jumping on your back so take this with the smile it's intended with;)

If you want 3 or more detachment that's fine, please don't say they didn't follow the data though. More people voted 2 detachment limit than any other choice. Period.

Could the poll have been done better? Yes

Won't argue against that but the "more people voted for 3 plus" argument is simply bananas. You can't in good faith change the "unlimited detachment" votes into "3 detachment" votes simply because neither group wanted 2 as their first choice. Sorry if I seem confrontational but it gets my nerd up;)

My statement stands.  Clearly the vote was in favor of 3...or more more often than two.  My gues is that those who voted "no limit" would have all voted for three had there been no such option as "unlimited' so in the end, again, 3 or more prevailed.

[Jayne_Cobbb]

As for the detachments...

 

Maybee a inquisition/legion of the damned/aSsassin as a third detachment should have been on the po'll.

 

Those micro codexes are exceptions, and maybe should be treated as such

[PourSpelur]

We don't get too guess at what votes would have changed our why they voted they way they did. All we can do is look at what they voted for.

Fakesville has open elections for mayor. Suzy Democrat, Bob Democrat and Robert Republican all run. The votes end up Suzy 90, Bob 90 and Robert 100.

Robert wins because more people voted for him. We don't get to go back and say "Well 180 people voted Democrat so one of them wins".

;)

[Jayne_Cobbb]

We don't get too guess at what votes would have changed our why they voted they way they did. All we can do is look at what they voted for.

Fakesville has open elections for mayor. Suzy Democrat, Bob Democrat and Robert Republican all run. The votes end up Suzy 90, Bob 90 and Robert 100.

Robert wins because more people voted for him. We don't get to go back and say "Well 180 people voted Democrat so one of them wins".

;)

That is why we have primaries...

[WestRider]

That is why we have primaries...

And Reece said it would take too long to do a multi-round poll like that :P

 

Seriously, poll design is so important. There are all kinds of ways you can introduce bias into them, either intentionally or by accident.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

We don't get too guess at what votes would have changed our why they voted they way they did. All we can do is look at what they voted for.

Fakesville has open elections for mayor. Suzy Democrat, Bob Democrat and Robert Republican all run. The votes end up Suzy 90, Bob 90 and Robert 100.

Robert wins because more people voted for him. We don't get to go back and say "Well 180 people voted Democrat so one of them wins".

;)

Pour you are flat wrong. Your analogy is non-relative. You are comparing a distinct choice poll to a sliding scale poll.

 

I get Nader did not steal Gore votes and did not cost Gore election anyone who says that is flat wrong because Nader shared little in common with Gore.

 

1 2 3 4 5 is all numbers within unlimited, and 3=/+ is wholly within unlimited as much as 2=/+. But just 2 is not in unlimited and just 3 is not in limited. All unlimited would have voted 3 period if choice was 1 2 or 3. However all who voted 3 May not have voted for unlimited if choice was 1 2 unlimited.

 

However when analyzing sliding scale polls as they created the most common practice would to read 3 won. Read any internet news poll. Since it is a relative practice to read it as such it is not a leap to assume that those who voted, voted with that understanding, and would expect the reading to be 3.

 

:). Anyone reading a poll as 2 one does not understand a point of a sliding scale system. Anyone using a sliding scale poll and wants to read it that way did so with a hidden agenda of obscure a false sense of choice. Someone as smart as Reece knew what the results would be and choice the phrase unlimited instead of what 90% of voters read it as when they voted 3=/+.

 

3 won hands down. And 2 was picked before poll went up to ensure the poll could be read that way the poll was drafted as it was.

 

I might be giving more credit to Reece than he deserves. Someone who had been in politics and done large scaling polling, I see a hidden agenda in how this was done.

 

I have little to know care in the results as I don't play in these events enough. Post in good fun :)

[AbusePuppy]

Fakesville has open elections for mayor. Suzy Democrat, Bob Democrat and Robert Republican all run. The votes end up Suzy 90, Bob 90 and Robert 100.

 

But if the question is "did more people vote for Democrats or Republicans?", then the answer is clearly Democrats. And, since Reece is in no way bound to the results of the poll- and, as many people have pointed out, the nature of the poll was rather biased- there is very little reason not to follow the obvious majority.

 

[Lord Hanaur]

We don't get too guess at what votes would have changed our why they voted they way they did. All we can do is look at what they voted for.

Fakesville has open elections for mayor. Suzy Democrat, Bob Democrat and Robert Republican all run. The votes end up Suzy 90, Bob 90 and Robert 100.

Robert wins because more people voted for him. We don't get to go back and say "Well 180 people voted Democrat so one of them wins".

;)

this wasnt an election.  People were forced to shoose only one and it takes no psychic to understand that those voting for "unlimited" would have voted 3 if they had known their vote would be counted in this way.  I guarantee you.

 

In any event, that's where I stand on it.  That's where they should stand on it.  Rigged election.  I demand a revote.

[Jayne_Cobbb]

Reece said he voted for three.

 

Saying three wine hands down is wrong. Because two got more votes

[Skkipper]

I voted for unlimited but if the choice was I

1,2, or 3 I would have picked two, so you are wrong Mr Bigglesworth to say all unlimited would have choosen two. 2 had the most two it is. If you don't like the ruling don't go to their events. Next time a poll comes out get support for your cause.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I did say all as a affirmative but later stated 90% of voters would interpret the choice of unlimited going into 3. My point being mathematically just 3 is more wholly in unlimited than just 2. That 90% of voters would vote with the interpetation of unlimited counting as a 3 vote.

 

I get some folks like yourself would be outliers hence the reason i stated the arbitrary number of 90%. I of course understand with any poll their is an outlier. I also understand you didn't read my full post because your last line implies such to tell a person who states they don't go to these events not to go, seems redundant.

 

I have no vested interest in the results of this poll and its interpreted results. My point in short is Reece went against the common practice of how you would read such a poll. Based on the most common practice the answer is 3 who got majority votes as 3 and unlimited are relative. This is not to say 3 won hands down but that if one were to read the poll based on common practice by how it was written, the correct answer is 3

 

Now if the choice was 1 2 3 4 and 4 had unlimited votes 2 would be the correct answer at least by common practice of how one would read such a poll. It is fair to say the common way to read a poll would be a factor in how one would vote.

[VonVilkee]

If you are saying how the poll was written should factor in them you would also have to factor in the bias of the writer. Reece has a history of going "blindly" with the top vote therefore I knew voting unlimited was a bad plan and voted 3. If you are expecting people to interpret their vote this is another point to know.

 

I put blindly in quotes as he doesn't blindly follow it but he does use the straight numbers as justification. It is a common bias for him.

[Torg]

wow - this is pretty far off the rails now… 

 

- anyhow, it seems to me it doesn't matter what justification was used for the ITC (and still not sure why they matter) - it is what it is.  Banshee's still stuck… what was the other concern?  Was it the attempt at a monopoly of rules and restrictions of all 40k gaming events nation wide (world wide) - by a irrelevant third party?

 

I understand the fuss - I know its changed my OFCC plans… but in the end of it all - if the events I go to - plan to use this ITC as a guide to how the game I play - is played.  And if I disagree with the rulings - I can avoid future conflicts by not going to those events.  Either the players and event organizers empower the ITC by falling in line to enforce / endorse it.  Or they choose not to do so… and by choice of where to go and spend $ for events - the validity of the ITC to the community will work itself out.  What I would have liked - to to have known that the ITC rulings were (or if they were being used) before I committed my $ to be at an event.  Next time I will be more careful or patient … to verify what the event organizer will be doing.

 

-d

[pretre]

ITC didn't change anything for OFCC team event. You weren't going to play some super heavies at the team event regardless of this poll.

 

ITC does change things for the open, however.

[VonVilkee]

Were you planning on attending the open? The team event is still subject to whatever subjective decisions are made behind the curtain (not meant derogatory in any way it is the only way i can describe it to myself).

 

The ITC is meant as a community effort to decide a list of guidelines to help with some consistency between events. I for one did not travel as much because of a lack of consistency between events and how those slight changes made all kinds of work for prep. To be part of the ITC still doesn't force you to match but most TOs will match what the Calis are doing.

 

Reece is welcoming of TOs still doing whatever with their particular event. ITC participation just requires contacting him and a clear winner based on battle points.

[von hammer]

The thing that people aren't seeing is that with these changes the format and restrictions have been changed. Last "season" there was a whole page of things that weren't allowed. Now the page just says what the poll is saying, nothing specific. So if a tourney is going to be using the ITC event guidelines they still have to make up their own rules along with it. Example: last season I couldn't bring the Legacy of war Battle of Keylek. Now this season it's nowhere to be found as something I can't bring. What I'm saying is, don't sweat what they changed and look at how dumbed down the guidelines are now.

[Torg]

ITC didn't change anything for OFCC team event. You weren't going to play some super heavies at the team event regardless of this poll.

 

ITC does change things for the open, however.

already answered this… back a few pages - but no ranged D… so no vortex… no scorpion or cobra.  Last year - they were ok to bring.  So - yes it has changed.  I have some ideas about what to do for my Army - it just won't be the planned army - rather just an update to last years army.

 

-d

[fluger]

Please note that I'm not sure that the person who answered that question is actually on the LRC... 

 

I think context always matters in a list.  

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

If you are saying how the poll was written should factor in them you would also have to factor in the bias of the writer. Reece has a history of going "blindly" with the top vote therefore I knew voting unlimited was a bad plan and voted 3. If you are expecting people to interpret their vote this is another point to know.

 

I put blindly in quotes as he doesn't blindly follow it but he does use the straight numbers as justification. It is a common bias for him.

Good point I didn't factor in the pattern of the author deriving a bias in voting.

[pretre]

already answered this… back a few pages - but no ranged D… so no vortex… no scorpion or cobra. Last year - they were ok to bring. So - yes it has changed. I have some ideas about what to do for my Army - it just won't be the planned army - rather just an update to last years army.

 

-d

The decision for changes in lists were made prior to the ITC poll. I did not make them but I'd look to the open/team split for a date when that happened.

[Lord Hanaur]

Well the FAQ doesn't concern itself with army builds anyways.  Just questions.  The OFCC allows all armies, unbound or otherwise so I guess in that sense, there's no real issues for army builds unless the Open is adopting more restrictive rules than the team tourney is.  I didn't realize that if that is true.
 

[fluger]

The Open is, in essence, more restrictive in terms of written rules.  The Team Tourney is more restrictive in the sense that the lists will be reviewed and power lists will be vetoed.  

[Lord Hanaur]

I get it. No problem. I was just worried that I might have missed some important post.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Has the leaked Eldar dex changed how you would vote if polled again?