KOTF OOC Thread

[flyd]

Don't mind me, just poking fun at Zim. (Someone has to do it).

[econ21]

Well, if anyone else is lurking and would like to join the PBM - post here or drop Zim a line, I am sure something can be arranged. Until then, I suggest we keep the Prince as a "non-speaking part". The first person whose avatar dies can make a case for picking him up.

[Ramses II CP]

Just by way of an FYI a former friend of my family has decided to try to harass us and cause problems, so I'm dealing with that in real life and it makes it very difficult for me to enjoy gaming even when I have time. Prince Louis hasn't been abandoned, he's just feeling a little more sedate or something right now.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Ouch, I can't even imagine how harsh/annoying that would be. Best wishes Ramses.

[OverKnight]

Stupid, stupid real life. Always ruining the fun. . .


The election for Seneschal just got even more interesting. It's close now, Florida close.

Or. . .to to draw on a more recent event. . .Minnesota close.

[Cecil XIX]

Am I wrong, or does Proclamation 2.1 take us back to LotR in terms of limits on expansion imposed by the rules? (i.e., there are none)

[OverKnight]

Only if we trade for or purchase territories. Anything we took through conquest would still have to be ratified.

Even given that, it's still too broad for my tastes.

[AussieGiant]

Well it requires a 2/3 majoriy to pass so I don't think it is going to get through.

[econ21]

I'm a little uneasy about the number of requests in the poll threads for votes to be changed - especially when the unweighted Seneschal vote is tied. I don't know of any real life polls where you can change your vote once cast. It seems to open the whole voting system to lots of potentially underhand deals (a loser is one vote behind so bribes one person to switch their vote). I am not at all saying that is happening here and am making no insinuations about anyone (I have not paid attention to who has voted for what etc.) And I understand that people can make mistakes/change their minds. But the potential for abuse seems to be there. The forums have a nice tool for polls that makes voting clean and transparent. My 2 cents is that we just stick with that. If people make a mistake or change their mind, that's too bad. Otherwise, I fear we are heading for horse-trading and risk becoming a medieval Florida at polling time.

[OverKnight]

People have changed their votes in the past for a few different reasons. Sometimes they clicked the wrong choice, sometimes under pressure from their Lords. When you ran the elections econ, how did you handle this?

I guess Zim would have final call on whether to accept a changed vote. We could also vote on a rules change to tighten voting procedures. If it comes to that, I'd prefer a verifiable secret ballot rather than a public poll, but we can burn that bridge when we get to it.

As it lies now, if we go by just the poll and accounting for influence, I believe the election is tied. Which means a fresh ballot. If the fresh ballot ties, we go by avatar age. Which would be unfortunate because Hugues and the King are the same age I think.

If the two changed votes are accepted, Hugues won.

[Ituralde]

I would only allow a change of vote if people accidentally pressed the wrong option. I can only speculate on the reason behind the current switches, but I would prefer if we could keep switching to the absolute minimum (i.e. misclicking) in future elections.

If the Leader of a House makes his priorities known to his vassals too late he just has to be faster or his vassals more patient the next time.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I do apologize for my part in all this. Unsure if Ramses would show, I decided to take some initiative and vote based on how I thought Louis would have wanted me to (rather than risk not voting). Then he returned and gave different orders.

[OverKnight]

Perhaps we should let an impartial official make the decision:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At least there are no hanging chads.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Sorry for the interruption (although this may be more pleasant than Katherine Harris ) but I'm learning about Hildegard von Bingen in class right now.

[OverKnight]

Weird, may I ask what course this is?

It can't be too interesting since you're posting while you're supposed to be. . .you know. . .learning?

Hit the books!

[GeneralHankerchief]

"Greatness in Music", and since I already looked her up when the whole Mandorf conversion saga started, I'm allowed to.

[Ituralde]

Fun Fact: Hildegard von Bingen published the earliest description of the female orgasm!

Now back to learning. And voting. And counting those votes, it seems like this election is going on forever!

[AussieGiant]

Regarding the election.

To date there have been a few changes but no repeat offenders.

There is clearly a RL issue with Ramses and GH, so there should be not too much of an issue here. It's happened before but as long as it doesn't start happening repeatedly for each person then we should be fine.

[Zim]

I just need to clear up one thing thing and I'll be able to post the results in a bit.

[Braden]

Well I've done some playtesting now and I'm fully IN the game now.

Just need to read up on Henri and swear fielty (is that the correct spelling ) to a Lord, post up a Bio and try to pursade someone to get me onto the battlefront!!

[econ21]

When you ran the elections econ, how did you handle this?

You are right, we've always been relaxed about changes in votes in the past. But back in the day, I thought they were correcting misclicks (which you would be a hard GM not to allow) as opposed to representing a change of heart (which is what is making me queasy now). I can't recall it coming up with a Chancellor vote, at least not one where it would matter. With the multiple edict polls, it's easy to misclick and so I readily allowed changes. Given that it's impossible for the GM to be sure if it's a misclick or a change of heart, I'd take a hard line now and stick with polls as they are but this is Zim's call.

[Ramses II CP]

House Aquitaine's voting pattern is entirely my fault, I don't even have a very nuanced view of what's happened in the election thus far due to real life nonsense. If it matters Louis' opinion on the vote was not based on votes already cast or not cast (I just flat out got a better offer from one candidate), but I won't argue no matter which way the issue is decided.

Sorry guys.

[OverKnight]

You are right, we've always been relaxed about changes in votes in the past. But back in the day, I thought they were correcting misclicks (which you would be a hard GM not to allow) as opposed to representing a change of heart (which is what is making me queasy now). I can't recall it coming up with a Chancellor vote, at least not one where it would matter. With the multiple edict polls, it's easy to misclick and so I readily allowed changes. Given that it's impossible for the GM to be sure if it's a misclick or a change of heart, I'd take a hard line now and stick with polls as they are but this is Zim's call.

If there is a desire to tighten up how we count votes, feel free to propose a rules change. However, I also feel a bit queasy over how we are arguing about applying new stricter standards to a vote that has already taken place under previous accepted standards.

I'm all for changing the rules going forward, but retroactively doing so is a bit of a grey area.

[Ignoramus]

The current system is poor, because it enables people who vote last to see who's going to win, thus enabling them to support the winner and receive the benefits thereby. I feel that some of the vote changes have been done because of this.

[Northnovas]

Well I agree lets deal with a present, we have a tie so a run off vote?
If there are concerns with the voting lets a rule before the next election but deal with this vote now under the current system.

[econ21]

If there is a desire to tighten up how we count votes, feel free to propose a rules change. However, I also feel a bit queasy over how we are arguing about applying new stricter standards to a vote that has already taken place under previous accepted standards.

I'm all for changing the rules going forward, but retroactively doing so is a bit of a grey area.

Well, IMO, a player requesting to change their vote because they have changed their mind makes the whole thing a grey area. I've just looked over the old LotR, KotR and WotS election polls. No one changed their vote in any KotR or WotS election. In LotR, it happened twice - both claimed to be "mistakes", although one at least has me looking for a raised eyebrows smillie. I don't think we have ever had anyone say - please change my vote because I have changed my mind. I think that would be a change in the accepted standard, but maybe I am out of touch.

I'd be happy with whatever Zim decides for this particular poll - this kind of thing seems entirely at his discretion and he is, as you say, impartial. But I would be even happier if he did not allow changes in the future. Such changes seem to be becoming common enough to act on - two cases in two KotF polls (plus two in eight LotR ones). A GM ruling would be sufficient, IMO, as there is no rule to change and I don't think we need to have everything in writing (or the rules would be voluminous).

The current system is poor, because it enables people who vote last to see who's going to win, thus enabling them to support the winner and receive the benefits thereby.

Yes, I guess that's one reason why OK was suggesting a secret ballot. But I think the reason we use public votes is that it is an easy way to check that only bona fide players vote. (I was nervous when I mistakenly made the first Order Captain election poll secret - I had no way to know who was voting). And identifying the voters is necessary to know which votes come with added influence. But I also quite like the public aspect as it's what real Parliament's do to keep representatives accountable. In our context, it makes voting "blocs" like Duchies have some coherence and makes some horse trades more enforceable.

In an ideal world, we'd vote simultaneously - a show of hands, a Westminster division etc. - but that's not practical in an internet game.

I think we just have to live with players being able to delay voting to see which way the wind is blowing. I confess I've done it sometimes in past games votes on edicts - deciding if I wanted to expend political capital on a lost cause - but never for elections.

[GeneralHankerchief]

The current system is poor, because it enables people who vote last to see who's going to win, thus enabling them to support the winner and receive the benefits thereby. I feel that some of the vote changes have been done because of this.

I can honestly say that this hasn't been the case in any of the instances for this session. Aquitaine was disorganized without our leader, we voted in fear of losing our vote while waiting for Ramses to show up, and then he appeared and gave us our orders.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Exactly, just following orders


If it that big of a deal we can always get rid of the switch....
sorry If I caused any problems.

[deguerra]

I'm certainly happy to leave things as they are for this election, and for the future say any vote changes should be only due to misclicking (and quite frankly I would be suspicious about misclicking in a three person poll).

As for the Aquitaine situation, I recognize the issue. I'd say in future, just wait til the last feasible minute to vote so orders can come in. And if the situation still arises, and is made public, I don't really have a problem with votes changing in those specific circumstances. The change was in essence Ramses' "fault" and I don't think we should punish him or his duchy for his perfectly understandable absence.

[OverKnight]

Hmmm. We want to avoid delayed or gamey voting, but we also want to know how each person voted.

If Zim was up to it, and it would be a bit of a headache, each player would send a PM to Zim with their vote for Seneschal (I'm assuming we could leave legislation as is) during the 48 hour voting period. PMs have time stamps, so this is trackable. Once the voting period is over, Zim would post the PMs of eligible voters. If he wanted he could even designate someone to tally the votes and influence, as long as he, as an impartial thirdy party, receives the originial PMs. This way we can't track votes while balloting is going on, but we still know afterwards how people voted.

If someone went against his liege's wishes, he could still suffer fallout for not toeing the line, even if it was too late for the current election. The downside is that this would burden Zim with more work and possibly slow down the game. But we seem to be doing that now anyway.