New ITC Poll

[Lord Hanaur]

True. True.

[Mr.MoreTanks]

It seems pretty unrealistic to think that 49% of the ITC voters that dont have something go their way get pissed.

 

Plenty of the votes haven't gone the way I voted. I shrug, and adapt and overcome. I think that's the majority of people. To think that even 1/5 of players actually get genuinely upset over the votes to the point of boycotting or making a fuss seems pretty inaccurate considering the number of voters.

[Lord Hanaur]

It seems pretty unrealistic to think that 49% of the ITC voters that dont have something go their way get pissed.

 

Plenty of the votes haven't gone the way I voted. I shrug, and adapt and overcome. I think that's the majority of people. To think that even 1/5 of players actually get genuinely upset over the votes to the point of boycotting or making a fuss seems pretty inaccurate considering the number of voters.

Not with just one vote.  No.

 

This isnt about how i voted.  i would have voted in the majority.

[galahad911]

Not with just one vote.  No.

 

This isnt about how i voted.  i would have voted in the majority.

 

How...? What? Just one vote? What are you talking about? How does that response pertain to the post you quoted??

 

He didn't say anything at all about how you voted. WTF are you reading?

 

He says that it's unrealistic to think that 49% of the people who had votes go against them got angry about the results, and then spoke about himself, and how he responds to a vote not going his way and his opinion that that is the way the majority of those people respond.

 

What the hell does any of that have to do with how you voted?

[Lord Hanaur]

How...? What? Just one vote? What are you talking about? How does that response pertain to the post you quoted??

 

He didn't say anything at all about how you voted. WTF are you reading?

 

He says that it's unrealistic to think that 49% of the people who had votes go against them got angry about the results, and then spoke about himself, and how he responds to a vote not going his way and his opinion that that is the way the majority of those people respond.

 

What the hell does any of that have to do with how you voted?

Oh Galahad.  Playing obtuse are we?  

 

He says he doesn't see people with pitchforks coming over this vote.  i said not with just one vote perhaps.  Keep up.

 

He said he himself had votes go the other way.  I pointed out that in this case, that wasn't my gripe.  Are you caught up?  Good.

[AbusePuppy]

Alright, since we seem to be talking past each other on this whole thing, let's make sure we are 100% clear on things.

 

What is your specific problem with the way that ITC handled this vote, LH?

[galahad911]

Oh Galahad.  Playing obtuse are we?  

 

He says he doesn't see people with pitchforks coming over this vote.  i said not with just one vote perhaps.  Keep up.

 

He said he himself had votes go the other way.  I pointed out that in this case, that wasn't my gripe.  Are you caught up?  Good.

 

He didn't say anything about people with pitchforks. But you did earlier... Are you talking to yourself?

 

He was saying that he didn't think 49% of the people were angry. He's saying of the people who voted the other way, it is highly unlikely that anywhere close to 49% of them are actually angry about it going the other way. He wasn't talking at all about a grab your pitchfork, let's throw down the Lord situation. That's only you talking about that.

 

What made you feel like you needed to say, for like the 4th or 5th time, that this vote didn't go against you? What in his post prompted that comment? That was the source of my confusion. What was said that would prompt that response? I can't see how what you thought of that particular rule had any relevance to his having had votes go against him, and his adapting to overcome, and that the majority of players do the same.

 

Lastly, it's really easy to be obtuse when you're reacting to someone who's talking to themselves and throwing out random "I didn't vote that way" comments that have nothing at all to do with the post they quoted.

[galahad911]

Alright, since we seem to be talking past each other on this whole thing, let's make sure we are 100% clear on things.

 

What is your specific problem with the way that ITC handled this vote, LH?

 

He wants there to be a super majority for the result of the vote to be enacted.

 

Despite the fact that several people have pointed out that if that was the way they did it, there would never be any resolution to votes that are even mildly debated, because if that much of the overall community agreed in the first place, there would be no contention about how to play it. So we would have a FAQ with answers that everyone already agreed upon before the question was asked, and we would vote ad infinitum on the things that actually need to be answered, never getting the margin of victory he seems to think we should have to answer any question.

 

But since he just wants TOs to rule on stuff by their whim, and for there to be no uniformly accepted way for the tournament community at large to play disputed rules, that would fit his agenda. 

[Lord Hanaur]

Alright, since we seem to be talking past each other on this whole thing, let's make sure we are 100% clear on things.

 

What is your specific problem with the way that ITC handled this vote, LH?

The ITC should require a super majority for their super FAQ.  They should be careful in their wording and be more explanatory in their questions.  I thought I was very clear.  This isn't about me, or whether i would vote the same.  This is for the betterment of the ITC.

 

The ITC isn't "just" their FAQ for their local stuff any more or this would all be a moot point.  I'm fine with whatever they do at those main events.  Its theirs.  

 

Since they have marketed it purposefully to be treated as a "Super FAQ" that all other events can use as their template in order to be an "ITC" event, and people have openly said they go to an ITC event because it is one, there is a heavier responsibility on the ITC to leave anything that cannot reach a higher majority out of their super FAQ.  They can agree to rule it whatever way they will rule it during their own games of course.  But for the Super FAQ, it needs to come with a higher threshold that leaves it beyond the doubt that the vote was simply a knew jerk or simply peoples self interest or merely because a few people forgot to vote!  Even people who don't agree with the FAQ will at least accept them when they know that 65% of the players are not going to let you play it any other way anyways.  When HALF your opponents agree with you and aren't even asking to dice it off?  It's a bit harder to tell someone "yeah we're just going to go aheaad and rewrite your rulebook for you".

 

People are not giving enough weight to what happens when you do things like that.  Its a big freaking deal to change the fundamental bedrock of how an army works and if you're going to do it, it better damn well be more than 50% who think you should or its absolutely a perfect example of when a coin flip will work just fine!

 

My question is:  why the heck would anyone here WANT to accept a 50% vote?  To me, it seems entirely not in your best interests to allow the game to be changed in so fickle a manner.  Moreover, the ITC and not you decides when and even if another vote will ever be taken.  So by setting a higher threshold, you are making sure that the ITC isn't going to just "squirrel away " the polls they liked and never poll them again, while re-polling the ones they "kinda wish had gone the other way".  It ensures the ITC must carefully word its questions to even get the requisite agreement.  If your study such things as i did for nine years, you understand that one of the powers an entity can wield is simply the ability not to allow a vote to happen.

 

It is in your best interest to support such a threshold.  It is also in the ITC''s, for while they will surely rule this way or that for their event if there is no Supr FAQ on it, it frees the rest of us to do as seems right to us without pressuring players and TO's with "Well thats not what the ITC says..." conversations.  ITC is not the rule book.  The rule book is the rule book.  We are just allowing them to alter the game where we come to major agreement on the need for clarity.  That allowance should come with a proviso:  Make sure there is a comfortable lean of the community as a whole since its a Super FAQ.  Until there really is a TRUE consensus, don't put onus on us to play it other than we and our opponents wish.  Consensus building is the goal of the polls, so lets make sure the ITC avoids the pitfalls that made the INAT tiresome.

 

I want the ITC to be a cool thing, instead of just some "insurance policy" as it surely is treated now by the munchkin gamers.  It isn't there to limit them.  Its theit to limit their opponent.

[Lord Hanaur]

Lastly, it's really easy to be obtuse 

I can see that.

[galahad911]

I can see that.

 

Way to not address anything but those 7 words. If I'm soooo very obtuse, then answer the question I posed, enlighten me. Of course you won't, because then you'd just look like an ass who wants to call someone slow and not back it up when you get called out for it.

 

 

He didn't say anything about people with pitchforks. But you did earlier... Are you talking to yourself?

 

He was saying that he didn't think 49% of the people were angry. He's saying of the people who voted the other way, it is highly unlikely that anywhere close to 49% of them are actually angry about it going the other way. He wasn't talking at all about a grab your pitchfork, let's throw down the Lord situation. That's only you talking about that.

 

What made you feel like you needed to say, for like the 4th or 5th time, that this vote didn't go against you? What in his post prompted that comment? That was the source of my confusion. What was said that would prompt that response? I can't see how what you thought of that particular rule had any relevance to his having had votes go against him, and his adapting to overcome, and that the majority of players do the same.

 

Lastly, it's really easy to be obtuse when you're reacting to someone who's talking to themselves and throwing out random "I didn't vote that way" comments that have nothing at all to do with the post they quoted.

 

Here it is again jackass. If I'm so very obtuse, then answer the questions posed.

 

No one is talking about people getting angry enough at the ITC to get out the pitchforks but you. But yet you responded to MrMoreTanks' post like he did, and when I asked WTF are you talking about, you called me slow. So tell me, who else was talking about that? Are you just talking to yourself? Because no one else has even suggested that anyone is getting that upset about these rulings.

 

And, again, what in the post you quoted prompted you to talk about how you voted on that rule? Because, again, you called me slow, so I'm really wanting to know what I missed. Because it sure looks like he was talking about how he, and what he thinks to be the majority of the players who have rules go against them, does when a rule goes the other way, adapt to overcome. So I asked you why you just, seemingly arbitrarily, decided to throw out there that you voted with the majority, and you call me slow. You know, instead of being an [Clown], you could just answer the question.

 

He wants there to be a super majority for the result of the vote to be enacted.

 

Despite the fact that several people have pointed out that if that was the way they did it, there would never be any resolution to votes that are even mildly debated, because if that much of the overall community agreed in the first place, there would be no contention about how to play it. So we would have a FAQ with answers that everyone already agreed upon before the question was asked, and we would vote ad infinitum on the things that actually need to be answered, never getting the margin of victory he seems to think we should have to answer any question.

 

But since he just wants TOs to rule on stuff by their whim, and for there to be no uniformly accepted way for the tournament community at large to play disputed rules, that would fit his agenda. 

 

 

And lastly, this is why your suggestion does not hold water. If you only do rulings on things that are not contentious, which if you get a super majority the question by definition is not contentious, then there is no point in doing the FAQ in the first place. Answering all the questions we already agree on, and never answering anything we don't agree on because you will never get some arbitrary margin of victory defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place. FFS, it's been said several times, and not just by me. So even though you have been commenting without actually reading my posts, you should have seen it when the other people said the same damn thing. Not that you've said anything at all in response to this issue. I guess it's just to much to ask that you to actually address the content of a post, when it's so much easier to call someone slow and act like you're oh so much smarter than the guy you're insulting.

[Blustorm]

I don't think continuing this line of discussion will be very fruitful. 

 

Mod Note - Topic is now locked.