Until you can spell out exactly HOW non voting or voting no, can lead to what any reasonable admin would consider "exploitation", (something that would get you punished, typically) I am going to assume you are confused about that word and the intended design of this system.
I already have. It's very clearly demonstrated in the example directly proceeding that quote. But if you're not going to bother to read...
(I'm not using it in a sense that it's something that could be punished for by an admin)
With the proposed system, you would only have to have 50% of the players vote in any favor, Yes or No.
Meaning if 4 vote Yes, and 2 vote No... the other 6 non voters are no longer counted and the vote would pass.
Isn't satiating those 4/12 minority who want change exactly what you want?
The 2 that vote no won't vote once they discover it's not in their best interests. Thus causing a would-be 4v2 vote to actually end up being 4v0 with a total of <50% voters (even though the total of voters is really >=50% due to people purposefully taking advantage of the flaws in this system), eventuating in the vote ultimately failing. Quite simply - If you'd read my post then then, well, you would know this.
Personally, if this system goes through I would tell other non-voters simply not to vote for votes I particularly don't want to go through, and I suspect other will too once people catch onto it.
LOL.. that's called democracy .. not exploitation.
You would not get kicked from a server for rallying for a vote... does that remotely sound like something an admin would call an exploit??
Try again.
Edit:
I see your parenthesis edit there. Like i said.. you don't know what the word meant.
Here's a rough descriptor : "An exploit is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software"
Rallying for votes, whether to vote or not, is entirely intended...
I would have thought that this would have been something that wouldn't need an explanation given how the system is designed...
To be super clear here: I see your point very clearly and agree that once people understand how not voting at all would weigh more than voting No, it would make the system just as bad as what we have now.
The problem is.. that's as good as its going to get because there is no other solution. Theoretically allowing 1 person to pass votes consistently in servers is a terrible idea and I don't think I've seen it implemented like that in any multiplayer game for obvious reasons. Bottom line is that the best way to implement any voting system is majority rule.. but some people want their vote to pass without said requirement. If rallying is so successful that the recommended system would break, then use the power of said rallying to pass your votes in the current system.
Personally, if this system goes through I would tell other non-voters simply not to vote for votes I particularly don't want to go through, and I suspect other will too once people catch onto it.
LOL.. that's called democracy .. not exploitation.
You would not get kicked from a server for rallying for a vote... does that remotely sound like something an admin would call an exploit??
Try again.
edit: i see your parenthesis edit there. Like i said.. you don't know what the word meant.
Here's a rough descriptor : "An exploit is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software"
Rallying for votes, whether to vote or not, is entirely intended...
I would have though that this would have been something that wouldn't need an explanation given how the system is designed...
It isn't a exploit. But it is a flawed system. Any system that encourage people to NOT vote is flawed!
If you can't:
a) bother to read (for example, read the line that that stated it was not a punishable type of 'exploiting')
and
b) grasp very simple concepts (like more yes votes than no votes eventuating in a failed vote, due to abusing the minimum total vote requirement, not being democratic)
...then quite frankly it's not worth it doing a back and forth with you.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited January 2014
I read it. You didn't understand the usage of the word and after getting called out on it are now trying to create a new definition of it.
The requested "1 person can pass votes" system would be ripe with actual exploitation that WOULD require administrative action.. unlike your usage of it?
So stop using it like its something that is as remotely as important with words like "abuse" and "grief" and "exploit"..
That's akin to saying typing J1 in the console is "hacking"...
Edit:
I see your parenthesis edit there. Like i said.. you don't know what the word meant.
Here's a rough descriptor : "An exploit is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software"
Rallying for votes, whether to vote or not, is entirely intended...
I would have thought that this would have been something that wouldn't need an explanation given how the system is designed...
Just so you know, the word exploit is used outside of software. It doesn't necessarily have to relate to a punishable offence on a game server. But because I probably can't convince you myself that I know how to English, I believe Merriem-Webster is a decent enough authority on the English language. It defines "exploit" as "to use (someone or something) in a way that helps you unfairly" which I believe fits exactly in the context I used it in. I guess you would have to understand what's unfair about it though... which I can't exactly help you with because I've explained it clearly enough.
"it would make the system just as bad as what we have now."
No, it would make it worse. And the current system is bad enough. But at least it's not vulnerable to exploitation [insert some other word that means exploitation but isn't exploitation so IronHorse doesn't get confused and immediately assume I'm illiterate]
I read it. You didn't understand the usage of the word and after getting called out on it are now trying to create a new definition of it.
The requested "1 person can pass votes" system would be ripe with actual exploitation that WOULD require administrative action.. unlike your usage of it?
So stop using it like its something that is as remotely as important with words like "abuse" and "grief" and "exploit"..
That's akin to saying typing J1 in the console is "hacking"...
"Not counting Non Votes once X percentage of players on the server have voted. "
This seems like a fine solution really as long as the % is reasonable.
I still think there's room for improvement, mainly getting rid of the vote menu after having voted. I sure as hell don't care about the outcome of the poll in real-time, just show me the results.
I can assure you, this happens on European servers as well.
Up until today I would have said "BLATANT LIES", but alas. Today is the first time I've witnessed constant vote spam. The vote always fell through as nobody but 2-4 people wanted the vote to succeed. It became a childish play of kick votes going back and forth up to the point I wanted to be able to hide the vote menu all together.
Any system that encourage people to NOT vote is flawed!
That will always be present unless you remove a min % limitation altogether. Still, edge case scenario and all that. Not going into this again.
Servers without active admins do need some way to handle problems, thus voting.
It's not my fault that horses don't know that the English language exists outside of ns2.
What perfect closing words for this thread to be locked to.
If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't contribute at all.
Words like "abuse" and "exploit" exist outside the context of ns2, or a computer game, or software itself. These terms can be used generically rather than their game-specific. And can also be used generically to describe things about the game (e.g. "I'm going to abuse the fuck out of overlook and skylights to keep the marines occupied). Obviously you have to be careful about being deliberate in your language/context like flat out stating that "X is an exploit" or "Y is abuse" - this should not practically be interpreted any other way. However, it is not hard to understand that, in the context I used it in, "exploiting the flaws in having a minimum vote requirement" doesn't specifically refer to something on the non-existent list of punishable and commonly-accepted exploits (like, perhaps, building something inside a wall), but rather that I'm using the generic definition.
Suggesting otherwise is either deliberately sensationalizing what I've said or just a simple mistake. If it was a mistake though he shouldn't continue to pretend like I actually meant something else when I deliberately meant otherwise and have even confirmed this myself. It's the same as putting words in my mouth. My own words mind you, but changing what they mean to suit his own argument. Whilst my post was snarky, I think the fact that this type of arguing is highly unreasonable entitles me to a little bit of cheekiness as long as it doesn't border on abuse (forum-specific this time in case there's another misinterpretation).
Please don't lock the thread because of my exploits
It's not my fault that horses don't know that the English language exists outside of ns2.
What perfect closing words for this thread to be locked to.
If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't contribute at all.
Words like "abuse" and "exploit" exist outside the context of ns2, or a computer game, or software itself. These terms can be used generically rather than their game-specific. And can also be used generically to describe things about the game (e.g. "I'm going to abuse the fuck out of overlook and skylights to keep the marines occupied). Obviously you have to be careful about being deliberate in your language/context like flat out stating that "X is an exploit" or "Y is abuse" - this should not practically be interpreted any other way. However, it is not hard to understand that, in the context I used it in, "exploiting the flaws in having a minimum vote requirement" doesn't specifically refer to something on the non-existent list of punishable and commonly-accepted exploits (like, perhaps, building something inside a wall), but rather that I'm using the generic definition.
Suggesting otherwise is either deliberately sensationalizing what I've said or just a simple mistake. If it was a mistake though he shouldn't continue to pretend like I actually meant something else when I deliberately meant otherwise and have even confirmed this myself. It's the same as putting words in my mouth. My own words mind you, but changing what they mean to suit his own argument. Whilst my post was snarky, I think the fact that this type of arguing is highly unreasonable entitles me to a little bit of cheekiness as long as it doesn't border on abuse (forum-specific this time in case there's another misinterpretation).
Please don't lock the thread because of my exploits
exploits have a very specific definition in the tech sector in general. they refer to flaws in code or in design that are susceptible to malicious intent. day one exploits for example. exploiting flaws in map coverage to get outside the map for example. abuse also has a pretty wellestablished definition in regards to gaming.
I know. But you can still use the word's generic non-tech-specific definition even when describing something in game - as I've already demonstrated with abuse. Whilst it's ok to assume that the tech-specific definition was intended, as we are after all, talking about a game, it's not ok to carry on saying I meant something else when I very clearly confirmed my specific intention after the fact.
The fact that it takes this many words and this many posts to communicate something as simple as "oh, I meant the other definition" is ridiculous. IIRC you said something earlier about the conversation going in circles and rehashing the same points - this is why. When people can't understand very simple and logical points (like the definition I specifically and deliberately confirmed I meant, was in fact, what I meant and that words can sometimes have more than one meaning), obviously a certain amount of repetition and rephrasing is necessary to get the point across.
EDIT: Wait a sec were you calling out my use of the word 'exploits' in that final one-liner? Because if I can't even use it that way without it being misinterpreted/redefined on my behalf then there is a serious language barrier problem on these forums. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were referring to the overarching conversation revolving around the initial misinterpretation of 'exploitation'.
To be super clear here: I see your point very clearly and agree that once people understand how not voting at all would weigh more than voting No, it would make the system just as bad as what we have now.
The problem is.. that's as good as its going to get because there is no other solution. Theoretically allowing 1 person to pass votes consistently in servers is a terrible idea and I don't think I've seen it implemented like that in any multiplayer game for obvious reasons. Bottom line is that the best way to implement any voting system is majority rule.. but some people want their vote to pass without said requirement. If rallying is so successful that the recommended system would break, then use the power of said rallying to pass your votes in the current system.
I apologize as I only skimmed this part and didn't really give it my full attention - was distracted by word definition pedantry. So probably would have been slightly less snarky and defensive if I'd properly absorbed this section as you have conceded a few points (like not voting weighing more than voting in proposed system)- so I really should have given this fair attention.
It'd make it just as bad in the sense that all those rallied non-action vote fails (i.e. vote fails won by a non-voting would-be no voter minority) will still fail in the current system. That I admit. What makes it worse is that those failed votes go against the intended design of the proposed system, but not the current system.
Current system is designed to only pass on a strict yes vote majority (of total players), intended to preserve the status quo. Because it is not concerned with active participants and it's strict majority condition relies solely on total players, such failed votes are fine (well, according to the core concept of fairness this system adheres to and is trying to preserve)
However, in the proposed system this specifically goes against it's design intent: intended to a) enforce yes vs no democracy as long as b) active participants are greater than 50% (assuming this is the number). Thus the rallied non-action no vote phenomenon goes against this because both (a) is not enforced and (b) is also arguably not enforced (because the rallied no votes are still actively participating by actively deciding to register non action to a vote they aren't apathetic about). Because the current voting system isn't designed this way and is intended to preserve a different kind of democracy, allowing the exact same vote situation to fail is more fair than if it would in the proposed system.
Maybe the idea that rallying no-voters not to vote won't be as significant as I imagine it could be (so the proposed system won't necessarily break). There definitely will be passed votes that could have failed due to rallying actually pass due to ignorance of the no-voters or simple unwillingness to circumvent the intended design. You may not have thought through this point here, however:
"If rallying is so successful that the recommended system would break, then use the power of said rallying to pass your votes in the current system."
^^ as rallying only works for no voters. You can't get a vote to pass by getting yes voters not to vote.
"Not counting Non Votes once X percentage of players on the server have voted. "
This seems like a fine solution really as long as the % is reasonable.
I still think there's room for improvement, mainly getting rid of the vote menu after having voted. I sure as hell don't care about the outcome of the poll in real-time, just show me the results.
I can assure you, this happens on European servers as well.
Up until today I would have said "BLATANT LIES", but alas. Today is the first time I've witnessed constant vote spam. The vote always fell through as nobody but 2-4 people wanted the vote to succeed. It became a childish play of kick votes going back and forth up to the point I wanted to be able to hide the vote menu all together.
Then you were very lucky.
It is true, that this isn't a daily problem. But it is a problem here, too.
Any system that encourage people to NOT vote is flawed!
That will always be present unless you remove a min % limitation altogether. Still, edge case scenario and all that. Not going into this again.
Servers without active admins do need some way to handle problems, thus voting.
No, this is not an edge case scenario! This problem have to be considered by every no voter for every vote! As you have to wait and look if there are no voters who doesn't know the system!
This system would encourage every no voter, to not vote on every vote until the threshold is met to pass the vote.
The sheer fact that you can pass a vote by voting no makes this the worst system in this thread!
And that you have to calculate the threshold for every vote, to know if you have to vote or if you mustn't vote makes it the most annoying system possible, too.
The whole "constant vote spam" would be a problem in any system. If you have a pure yes vs no system or if you have a majority total playercount vote, or if you have some combination, this doesn't change the fact that votes can still be spammed (how the votes are treated doesn't effect how often you can vote). But constantly having to vote no in order to prevent a passed vote would be a bit annoying (for me personally, not significantly so but I can't speak for others) - a problem that doesn't exist in our current system or even the proposed system (the degree in which depends on the leniency of the vote minimum). So that is a legitimate greifing point against a purely democratic system. That you can just completely ignore vote-spam whereas if you have to vote no you simply can't.
However, it's not like problems necessarily have to stay problems. Surely there are extra anti vote spam features that could be implemented. That would mitigate the griefing problem on servers where you simply can't just kick the griefer due to disabled votekick. Although I get that even when kick is available it's annoying to have to do amongst all the spam. As mentioned though vote spam is a problem on any system. That's moot though because the system can actually be improved (although not perfected) by adding tougher anti vote-spam restrictions. There's absolutely no reason that the game should allow a player to constantly call for a vote over and over again and I'm not sure if anything is really done about this currently). It wouldn't completely mitigate this specific problem (votespam griefing). But it makes it far less significant.
This system would encourage every no voter, to not vote on every vote until the threshold is met to pass the vote.
Are you sure you didn't mean to prevent the threshold from being met to pass the vote? No voters (or rather, in this case, to be specific: actively non-voting would-be no voters) don't want the vote to pass.
Unless, of course, you meant pass the vote purely in terms of the no voters getting what they wanted (i.e. pass the no vote) - and threshhold being the threshhold of non-voters required to for the vote to be disqualified (as per the minimum total vote condition) rather than the other way round (threshhold required for votes to fail). I think the way you worded it perhaps causes a bit of confusion - although I admit I glossed over it at first and didn't even spot it.
I think it's obvious the intent of what you said in the context. However, I thought I better make sure that this is actually what you meant before just completely assuming it.
Yes sorry, it is a little bit unclear what I meant.
With threshold I meant the minimum percent of total voters needed to qualify a vote.
Every no-voter has to wait until this threshold is met, before it is wise for them to vote no. (At least, if the threshold is below 50%, is it more, we could get rid of the "no" option at all (btw, my favorite solution to this problem...))
As of vote spamming, yes this exists in every system. But as you mentioned it is the easiest to ignore in the current system. (and the hardest to ignore in the system with a minimum percentage of total voters, because then you have to actively watch the vote the entire time)
My main point against the original proposed system of ignoring the non voters isn't the spam problem. (which isn't that big as it seems right now in this thread, because it gets mentioned all the time here)
I just don't see a benefit in such a system. I don't think that much more votes would pass with it. Most of the time when a vote fails you see A relatively large number of "yes" votes, a small number of "no" votes and a huge number of non-votes. I cannot imagine that all those non voters you see all the day really don't mind the vote at all, they are just not in favor of the vote. And they know, that if they don't vote it is the same as if they vote "no". I bet, if they have to vote, they will vote. Maybe not everyone but enough to let most of the votes still fail.
Just to ignore the non-vote of the 2 or 3 AFKs on the server don't justify the development time and the confusion it would cause on many who are unaware of the changes.
[...] Any system that encourage people to NOT vote is flawed!
So tell me again why the vast majority of people that voted in this thread are being forced to keep an obviously flawed system? Is it because the entire population of the Earth is being counted as a vote for the first option since they didn't vote?
And just to be clear, I do not believe a "2 votes to 1" vote should pass on a server where 3 people is not a majority of the server population. I believe that an 8:2 vote should definitely pass on a 16 player server. And that any AFK players should not even be counted as abstaining.
My main point against the original proposed system of ignoring the non voters isn't the spam problem. (which isn't that big as it seems right now in this thread, because it gets mentioned all the time here)
Yeah I know that wasn't your main point and I understand your own criticism of the proposed system because I disagree with implementing that system for more or less the same reasons.
Oh yea it's not as bad as it is made out to be. Votespam can be mitigated - in any system.
No, this is not an edge case scenario! This problem have to be considered by every no voter for every vote! As you have to wait and look if there are no voters who doesn't know the system!
This system would encourage every no voter, to not vote on every vote until the threshold is met to pass the vote.
The sheer fact that you can pass a vote by voting no makes this the worst system in this thread!
And that you have to calculate the threshold for every vote, to know if you have to vote or if you mustn't vote makes it the most annoying system possible, too.
You're telling me you can get the average pubbie to unite behind "exploiting" a voting system while we can't even get them to listen half the time ?
There's a reason a min % is being used in game voting for AMXX/Sourcemod and it's always worked just fine.
I'm not saying its a perfect system, I and most of the voters in this thread are however saying its better then the current implementation.
You're telling me you can get the average pubbie to unite
No of course not! Thats the point why you have to pay attention to the vote the whole time...
Sorry, but I see this flaw (and I don't call it exploit, in every meaning of the vote) and it troubles me really, that in that system I can help a vote to pass by voting "no". Thats like helping Obama by voting for Romney, if we stay at the (false ) comparison made in this thread.
Words like "abuse" and "exploit" exist outside the context of ns2, or a computer game, or software itself. These terms can be used generically rather than their game-specific.
@doped0g
Seriously?
Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something?
Wasn't my entire point about "1 vote to pass" was that it created "game-specific" exploiting and griefing: behavior in which an admin would typically otherwise intervene??
This was my point and only usage of that term for multiple threads and posts now... stop defending the multiple definitions of it - no one was talking or using those. You began using them in a response to my post which properly used those terms in response to blarney_stone's claim that it would be "more exploitative to vote for them", I suppose it was to appear that both your rebuttals held the same weight of importance or more? I cannot fathom why else the exact same terminologies would otherwise be used in direct response to my own, let alone claiming as being "more" so than my example
That's where all this originated from. It was a poor claim made by blarney_stone that you seemingly upheld in your following post.
And now that we've concluded it is in fact not something which would allow what any admin would consider griefing, abuse, or exploiting... we can move on. That's all i cared about.
Geeeeeezeee...
I apologize for getting riled up about this, but it really bugged me when that claim was given and defended to that extent, only to be explained as "not what i meant" at the last moment. Are we good to go, now?
So tell me again why the vast majority of people that voted in this thread
Because its thee pitfall of a poll, in comparison to an actual fleshed out debate: People just vote based on a sentence without all the counter points brought up.
AKA, Does it sound good at first glance? Yes it does...so they vote. But If you give it enough thought and kick the idea around, though, the cracks begin to show.
You can do this with almost any topic, actually. I did it earlier in the year with a "Tech tied to Techpoints" thread... massive chaos and blind voting.
And just to be clear, I do not believe a "2 votes to 1" vote should pass on a server where 3 people is not a majority of the server population. I believe that an 8:2 vote should definitely pass on a 16 player server. And that any AFK players should not even be counted as abstaining.
Thats the system thats been proposed, but as dopedog pointed out, it too has its flaws.
Although i still think its better than what we have now. Maybe if the % was set lower like 35-40%, idk..
Words like "abuse" and "exploit" exist outside the context of ns2, or a computer game, or software itself. These terms can be used generically rather than their game-specific.
@doped0g
Seriously?
"Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something? "
Wasn't my entire point about "1 vote to pass" was that it created "game-specific" exploiting and griefing: behavior in which an admin would typically otherwise intervene??
And now that we've concluded it is in fact not something which would allow what any admin would consider griefing, abuse, or exploiting... we can move on. That's all i cared about.
OMFG. We could move on if you could stop saying i'm wrong to use a generic definition, even if you now accecpt that's what I meant.
"Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something? "
If we're moving on and you accept that's what I meant, then that was completely unnecessary.
I'd rather not be held to barneys use of the word as it was admittedly probably a bit too sensational to class as exploitative even under a generic definition, but I was merely trying to clarify his reasoning to you. Sure I posed the reply as "it's exploitative because..." so that may have caused (perfectly understandable) confusion.
Anyway - ""which would leave it vulnerable to exploitation for no voters who don't really have the majority." - is my context. Bearing in mind that you accepted my intent that I meant the generic definition of exploitation, rather than a punishable game offense - what other term could I have used? Capitalize? Take advantage? These may technically work, but would be undesirable because they don't come with enough inherent negative connotation (even though they come with some), and would be more awkward to fit in the sentence the way it is layed out.
Therefore, I used the best word possible in the pool of relevant words I had at my disposal. I didn't consider that it would only be viewed as a punishable type exploit because (a) the context made it obvious it wasn't and (b) I didn't pose the sentence in a way that would deliberately mean a punishable-type exploit (i.e. I didn't say "Not voting on purpose is an exploit" which would leave little room for it to reasonably mean something else).
So unless you can come up with a better term than exploitation, continuing this discussion is just completely unnecessary derailment and it's frankly ridiculous it's gone on this long. Even if there isn't a better term, exploitation is still appropriate. If you can't come up with any valid reason why the generic descripter isn't appropriate in the way I used it, or can't come up with a more fitting word, then I'll assume any further derailment is on purpose. I've already explained myself multiple times, and in way that should be more than satisfactory. But something tells me you're still not satisfied...
"That's all i cared about"
Apparently you cared about describing why I'm wrong one more time.
Words like "abuse" and "exploit" exist outside the context of ns2, or a computer game, or software itself. These terms can be used generically rather than their game-specific.
@doped0g
Seriously?
"Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something? "
Wasn't my entire point about "1 vote to pass" was that it created "game-specific" exploiting and griefing: behavior in which an admin would typically otherwise intervene??
And now that we've concluded it is in fact not something which would allow what any admin would consider griefing, abuse, or exploiting... we can move on. That's all i cared about.
OMFG. We could move on if you could stop saying i'm wrong to use a generic definition, even if you now accecpt that's what I meant.
"Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something? "
If we're moving on and you accept that's what I meant, then that was completely unnecessary.
I'd rather not be held to barneys use of the word as it was admittedly probably a bit too sensational to class as exploitative even under a generic definition, but I was merely trying to clarify his reasoning to you. Sure I posed the reply as "it's exploitative because..." so that may have caused (perfectly understandable) confusion.
Anyway - ""which would leave it vulnerable to exploitation for no voters who don't really have the majority." - is my context. Bearing in mind that you accepted my intent that I meant the generic definition of exploitation, rather than a punishable game offense - what other term could I have used? Capitalize? Take advantage? These may technically work, but would be undesirable because they don't come with enough inherent negative connotation (even though they come with some), and would be more awkward to fit in the sentence the way it is layed out.
Therefore, I used the best word possible in the pool of relevant words I had at my disposal. I didn't consider that it would only be viewed as a punishable type exploit because (a) the context made it obvious it wasn't and (b) I didn't pose the sentence in a way that would deliberately mean a punishable-type exploit (i.e. I didn't say "Not voting on purpose is an exploit" which would leave little room for it to reasonably mean something else).
So unless you can come up with a better term than exploitation, continuing this discussion is just completely unnecessary derailment and it's frankly ridiculous it's gone on this long. Even if there isn't a better term, exploitation is still appropriate. If you can't come up with any valid reason why the generic descripter isn't appropriate in the way I used it, or can't come up with a more fitting word, then I'll assume any further derailment is on purpose. I've already explained myself multiple times, and in way that should be more than satisfactory. But something tells me you're still not satisfied...
"That's all i cared about"
Apparently you cared about describing why I'm wrong one more time.
I demand satisfaction. this slight to proper diction will not, nay, must not stand. who else will stand with me, to defend those words that cannot speak for themselves?
I paint pictures, and absurdity is my favored palette.
Hey now, I was forced into this bullshit word definition pedantry by being told I was wrong over and over, and people completely misrepresenting my arguments due to their own mistake. Not my fault people can't understand basic things, even with the aid of multiple posts describing perfectly logical reasoning in more-or-less full detail. Perhaps I should go round misrepresenting you and pretending that your words mean different things and quoting them as if that's what you meant. I'll start with "satisfaction". Ewww. Maybe I won't :P
Because its thee pitfall of a poll, in comparison to an actual fleshed out debate: People just vote based on a sentence without all the counter points brought up.
AKA, Does it sound good at first glance? Yes it does...so they vote. But If you give it enough thought and kick the idea around, though, the cracks begin to show.
You can do this with almost any topic, actually. I did it earlier in the year with a "Tech tied to Techpoints" thread... massive chaos and blind voting.
That is a perfectly valid point. However, a new thread and poll could be made. The thread would summarize the fruits of the debate in this thread - offering all options, and showing clearly and consisely the advantages and disadvantages of each system (hopefully in a way that is objective of anyone's personal preferences). That way, with all the information appropriately laid out and visible to everyone (without scouring through pages of debate on the subject to understand the finer points), the results of the poll could then be taken more seriously as more people are voting with informed opinions rather than "in a vacuum".
Sure, people will still vote at first glance. But there will be more information to absorb in the first glance as one would hope that they at least read the OP. Although I just realised that every time I say "one would hope" I'm possibly being too optimistic.
Comments
(I'm not using it in a sense that it's something that could be punished for by an admin)
The 2 that vote no won't vote once they discover it's not in their best interests. Thus causing a would-be 4v2 vote to actually end up being 4v0 with a total of <50% voters (even though the total of voters is really >=50% due to people purposefully taking advantage of the flaws in this system), eventuating in the vote ultimately failing. Quite simply - If you'd read my post then then, well, you would know this.
You would not get kicked from a server for rallying for a vote... does that remotely sound like something an admin would call an exploit??
Try again.
Edit:
I see your parenthesis edit there. Like i said.. you don't know what the word meant.
Here's a rough descriptor : "An exploit is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software"
Rallying for votes, whether to vote or not, is entirely intended...
I would have thought that this would have been something that wouldn't need an explanation given how the system is designed...
To be super clear here: I see your point very clearly and agree that once people understand how not voting at all would weigh more than voting No, it would make the system just as bad as what we have now.
The problem is.. that's as good as its going to get because there is no other solution. Theoretically allowing 1 person to pass votes consistently in servers is a terrible idea and I don't think I've seen it implemented like that in any multiplayer game for obvious reasons. Bottom line is that the best way to implement any voting system is majority rule.. but some people want their vote to pass without said requirement. If rallying is so successful that the recommended system would break, then use the power of said rallying to pass your votes in the current system.
It isn't a exploit. But it is a flawed system. Any system that encourage people to NOT vote is flawed!
a) bother to read (for example, read the line that that stated it was not a punishable type of 'exploiting')
and
b) grasp very simple concepts (like more yes votes than no votes eventuating in a failed vote, due to abusing the minimum total vote requirement, not being democratic)
...then quite frankly it's not worth it doing a back and forth with you.
Try again.
The requested "1 person can pass votes" system would be ripe with actual exploitation that WOULD require administrative action.. unlike your usage of it?
So stop using it like its something that is as remotely as important with words like "abuse" and "grief" and "exploit"..
That's akin to saying typing J1 in the console is "hacking"...
Just so you know, the word exploit is used outside of software. It doesn't necessarily have to relate to a punishable offence on a game server. But because I probably can't convince you myself that I know how to English, I believe Merriem-Webster is a decent enough authority on the English language. It defines "exploit" as "to use (someone or something) in a way that helps you unfairly" which I believe fits exactly in the context I used it in. I guess you would have to understand what's unfair about it though... which I can't exactly help you with because I've explained it clearly enough.
No, it would make it worse. And the current system is bad enough. But at least it's not vulnerable to exploitation [insert some other word that means exploitation but isn't exploitation so IronHorse doesn't get confused and immediately assume I'm illiterate]
let me be the first to call. HACKS!
It's not my fault that horses don't know that the English language exists outside of ns2.
What perfect closing words for this thread to be locked to.
This seems like a fine solution really as long as the % is reasonable.
I still think there's room for improvement, mainly getting rid of the vote menu after having voted. I sure as hell don't care about the outcome of the poll in real-time, just show me the results.
Up until today I would have said "BLATANT LIES", but alas. Today is the first time I've witnessed constant vote spam. The vote always fell through as nobody but 2-4 people wanted the vote to succeed. It became a childish play of kick votes going back and forth up to the point I wanted to be able to hide the vote menu all together.
That will always be present unless you remove a min % limitation altogether. Still, edge case scenario and all that. Not going into this again.
Servers without active admins do need some way to handle problems, thus voting.
If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't contribute at all.
Words like "abuse" and "exploit" exist outside the context of ns2, or a computer game, or software itself. These terms can be used generically rather than their game-specific. And can also be used generically to describe things about the game (e.g. "I'm going to abuse the fuck out of overlook and skylights to keep the marines occupied). Obviously you have to be careful about being deliberate in your language/context like flat out stating that "X is an exploit" or "Y is abuse" - this should not practically be interpreted any other way. However, it is not hard to understand that, in the context I used it in, "exploiting the flaws in having a minimum vote requirement" doesn't specifically refer to something on the non-existent list of punishable and commonly-accepted exploits (like, perhaps, building something inside a wall), but rather that I'm using the generic definition.
Suggesting otherwise is either deliberately sensationalizing what I've said or just a simple mistake. If it was a mistake though he shouldn't continue to pretend like I actually meant something else when I deliberately meant otherwise and have even confirmed this myself. It's the same as putting words in my mouth. My own words mind you, but changing what they mean to suit his own argument. Whilst my post was snarky, I think the fact that this type of arguing is highly unreasonable entitles me to a little bit of cheekiness as long as it doesn't border on abuse (forum-specific this time in case there's another misinterpretation).
Please don't lock the thread because of my exploits
exploits have a very specific definition in the tech sector in general. they refer to flaws in code or in design that are susceptible to malicious intent. day one exploits for example. exploiting flaws in map coverage to get outside the map for example. abuse also has a pretty wellestablished definition in regards to gaming.
The fact that it takes this many words and this many posts to communicate something as simple as "oh, I meant the other definition" is ridiculous. IIRC you said something earlier about the conversation going in circles and rehashing the same points - this is why. When people can't understand very simple and logical points (like the definition I specifically and deliberately confirmed I meant, was in fact, what I meant and that words can sometimes have more than one meaning), obviously a certain amount of repetition and rephrasing is necessary to get the point across.
EDIT: Wait a sec were you calling out my use of the word 'exploits' in that final one-liner? Because if I can't even use it that way without it being misinterpreted/redefined on my behalf then there is a serious language barrier problem on these forums. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were referring to the overarching conversation revolving around the initial misinterpretation of 'exploitation'.
Say Aye!
I apologize as I only skimmed this part and didn't really give it my full attention - was distracted by word definition pedantry. So probably would have been slightly less snarky and defensive if I'd properly absorbed this section as you have conceded a few points (like not voting weighing more than voting in proposed system)- so I really should have given this fair attention.
It'd make it just as bad in the sense that all those rallied non-action vote fails (i.e. vote fails won by a non-voting would-be no voter minority) will still fail in the current system. That I admit. What makes it worse is that those failed votes go against the intended design of the proposed system, but not the current system.
Current system is designed to only pass on a strict yes vote majority (of total players), intended to preserve the status quo. Because it is not concerned with active participants and it's strict majority condition relies solely on total players, such failed votes are fine (well, according to the core concept of fairness this system adheres to and is trying to preserve)
However, in the proposed system this specifically goes against it's design intent: intended to a) enforce yes vs no democracy as long as b) active participants are greater than 50% (assuming this is the number). Thus the rallied non-action no vote phenomenon goes against this because both (a) is not enforced and (b) is also arguably not enforced (because the rallied no votes are still actively participating by actively deciding to register non action to a vote they aren't apathetic about). Because the current voting system isn't designed this way and is intended to preserve a different kind of democracy, allowing the exact same vote situation to fail is more fair than if it would in the proposed system.
Maybe the idea that rallying no-voters not to vote won't be as significant as I imagine it could be (so the proposed system won't necessarily break). There definitely will be passed votes that could have failed due to rallying actually pass due to ignorance of the no-voters or simple unwillingness to circumvent the intended design. You may not have thought through this point here, however:
"If rallying is so successful that the recommended system would break, then use the power of said rallying to pass your votes in the current system."
^^ as rallying only works for no voters. You can't get a vote to pass by getting yes voters not to vote.
Then you were very lucky.
It is true, that this isn't a daily problem. But it is a problem here, too.
No, this is not an edge case scenario! This problem have to be considered by every no voter for every vote! As you have to wait and look if there are no voters who doesn't know the system!
This system would encourage every no voter, to not vote on every vote until the threshold is met to pass the vote.
The sheer fact that you can pass a vote by voting no makes this the worst system in this thread!
And that you have to calculate the threshold for every vote, to know if you have to vote or if you mustn't vote makes it the most annoying system possible, too.
The whole "constant vote spam" would be a problem in any system. If you have a pure yes vs no system or if you have a majority total playercount vote, or if you have some combination, this doesn't change the fact that votes can still be spammed (how the votes are treated doesn't effect how often you can vote). But constantly having to vote no in order to prevent a passed vote would be a bit annoying (for me personally, not significantly so but I can't speak for others) - a problem that doesn't exist in our current system or even the proposed system (the degree in which depends on the leniency of the vote minimum). So that is a legitimate greifing point against a purely democratic system. That you can just completely ignore vote-spam whereas if you have to vote no you simply can't.
However, it's not like problems necessarily have to stay problems. Surely there are extra anti vote spam features that could be implemented. That would mitigate the griefing problem on servers where you simply can't just kick the griefer due to disabled votekick. Although I get that even when kick is available it's annoying to have to do amongst all the spam. As mentioned though vote spam is a problem on any system. That's moot though because the system can actually be improved (although not perfected) by adding tougher anti vote-spam restrictions. There's absolutely no reason that the game should allow a player to constantly call for a vote over and over again and I'm not sure if anything is really done about this currently). It wouldn't completely mitigate this specific problem (votespam griefing). But it makes it far less significant.
Are you sure you didn't mean to prevent the threshold from being met to pass the vote? No voters (or rather, in this case, to be specific: actively non-voting would-be no voters) don't want the vote to pass.
Unless, of course, you meant pass the vote purely in terms of the no voters getting what they wanted (i.e. pass the no vote) - and threshhold being the threshhold of non-voters required to for the vote to be disqualified (as per the minimum total vote condition) rather than the other way round (threshhold required for votes to fail). I think the way you worded it perhaps causes a bit of confusion - although I admit I glossed over it at first and didn't even spot it.
I think it's obvious the intent of what you said in the context. However, I thought I better make sure that this is actually what you meant before just completely assuming it.
With threshold I meant the minimum percent of total voters needed to qualify a vote.
Every no-voter has to wait until this threshold is met, before it is wise for them to vote no. (At least, if the threshold is below 50%, is it more, we could get rid of the "no" option at all (btw, my favorite solution to this problem...))
As of vote spamming, yes this exists in every system. But as you mentioned it is the easiest to ignore in the current system. (and the hardest to ignore in the system with a minimum percentage of total voters, because then you have to actively watch the vote the entire time)
My main point against the original proposed system of ignoring the non voters isn't the spam problem. (which isn't that big as it seems right now in this thread, because it gets mentioned all the time here)
I just don't see a benefit in such a system. I don't think that much more votes would pass with it. Most of the time when a vote fails you see A relatively large number of "yes" votes, a small number of "no" votes and a huge number of non-votes. I cannot imagine that all those non voters you see all the day really don't mind the vote at all, they are just not in favor of the vote. And they know, that if they don't vote it is the same as if they vote "no". I bet, if they have to vote, they will vote. Maybe not everyone but enough to let most of the votes still fail.
Just to ignore the non-vote of the 2 or 3 AFKs on the server don't justify the development time and the confusion it would cause on many who are unaware of the changes.
And:
So tell me again why the vast majority of people that voted in this thread are being forced to keep an obviously flawed system? Is it because the entire population of the Earth is being counted as a vote for the first option since they didn't vote?
And just to be clear, I do not believe a "2 votes to 1" vote should pass on a server where 3 people is not a majority of the server population. I believe that an 8:2 vote should definitely pass on a 16 player server. And that any AFK players should not even be counted as abstaining.
Yeah I know that wasn't your main point and I understand your own criticism of the proposed system because I disagree with implementing that system for more or less the same reasons.
Oh yea it's not as bad as it is made out to be. Votespam can be mitigated - in any system.
You're telling me you can get the average pubbie to unite behind "exploiting" a voting system while we can't even get them to listen half the time
There's a reason a min % is being used in game voting for AMXX/Sourcemod and it's always worked just fine.
I'm not saying its a perfect system, I and most of the voters in this thread are however saying its better then the current implementation.
Sorry, but I see this flaw (and I don't call it exploit, in every meaning of the vote) and it troubles me really, that in that system I can help a vote to pass by voting "no". Thats like helping Obama by voting for Romney, if we stay at the (false
Seriously?
Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something?
Wasn't my entire point about "1 vote to pass" was that it created "game-specific" exploiting and griefing: behavior in which an admin would typically otherwise intervene??
This was my point and only usage of that term for multiple threads and posts now... stop defending the multiple definitions of it - no one was talking or using those. You began using them in a response to my post which properly used those terms in response to blarney_stone's claim that it would be "more exploitative to vote for them", I suppose it was to appear that both your rebuttals held the same weight of importance or more? I cannot fathom why else the exact same terminologies would otherwise be used in direct response to my own, let alone claiming as being "more" so than my example
That's where all this originated from. It was a poor claim made by blarney_stone that you seemingly upheld in your following post.
And now that we've concluded it is in fact not something which would allow what any admin would consider griefing, abuse, or exploiting... we can move on. That's all i cared about.
Geeeeeezeee...
I apologize for getting riled up about this, but it really bugged me when that claim was given and defended to that extent, only to be explained as "not what i meant" at the last moment. Are we good to go, now?
Because its thee pitfall of a poll, in comparison to an actual fleshed out debate: People just vote based on a sentence without all the counter points brought up.
AKA, Does it sound good at first glance? Yes it does...so they vote. But If you give it enough thought and kick the idea around, though, the cracks begin to show.
You can do this with almost any topic, actually. I did it earlier in the year with a "Tech tied to Techpoints" thread... massive chaos and blind voting.
Thats the system thats been proposed, but as dopedog pointed out, it too has its flaws.
Although i still think its better than what we have now. Maybe if the % was set lower like 35-40%, idk..
OMFG. We could move on if you could stop saying i'm wrong to use a generic definition, even if you now accecpt that's what I meant.
"Are we not exclusively talking about game specific usages?? Is this not a game forum speaking about a game and in game mechanics? Did i miss something? "
If we're moving on and you accept that's what I meant, then that was completely unnecessary.
I'd rather not be held to barneys use of the word as it was admittedly probably a bit too sensational to class as exploitative even under a generic definition, but I was merely trying to clarify his reasoning to you. Sure I posed the reply as "it's exploitative because..." so that may have caused (perfectly understandable) confusion.
Anyway - ""which would leave it vulnerable to exploitation for no voters who don't really have the majority." - is my context. Bearing in mind that you accepted my intent that I meant the generic definition of exploitation, rather than a punishable game offense - what other term could I have used? Capitalize? Take advantage? These may technically work, but would be undesirable because they don't come with enough inherent negative connotation (even though they come with some), and would be more awkward to fit in the sentence the way it is layed out.
Therefore, I used the best word possible in the pool of relevant words I had at my disposal. I didn't consider that it would only be viewed as a punishable type exploit because (a) the context made it obvious it wasn't and (b) I didn't pose the sentence in a way that would deliberately mean a punishable-type exploit (i.e. I didn't say "Not voting on purpose is an exploit" which would leave little room for it to reasonably mean something else).
So unless you can come up with a better term than exploitation, continuing this discussion is just completely unnecessary derailment and it's frankly ridiculous it's gone on this long. Even if there isn't a better term, exploitation is still appropriate. If you can't come up with any valid reason why the generic descripter isn't appropriate in the way I used it, or can't come up with a more fitting word, then I'll assume any further derailment is on purpose. I've already explained myself multiple times, and in way that should be more than satisfactory. But something tells me you're still not satisfied...
"That's all i cared about"
Apparently you cared about describing why I'm wrong one more time.
I demand satisfaction. this slight to proper diction will not, nay, must not stand. who else will stand with me, to defend those words that cannot speak for themselves?
I paint pictures, and absurdity is my favored palette.
Hey now, I was forced into this bullshit word definition pedantry by being told I was wrong over and over, and people completely misrepresenting my arguments due to their own mistake. Not my fault people can't understand basic things, even with the aid of multiple posts describing perfectly logical reasoning in more-or-less full detail. Perhaps I should go round misrepresenting you and pretending that your words mean different things and quoting them as if that's what you meant. I'll start with "satisfaction". Ewww. Maybe I won't :P
That is a perfectly valid point. However, a new thread and poll could be made. The thread would summarize the fruits of the debate in this thread - offering all options, and showing clearly and consisely the advantages and disadvantages of each system (hopefully in a way that is objective of anyone's personal preferences). That way, with all the information appropriately laid out and visible to everyone (without scouring through pages of debate on the subject to understand the finer points), the results of the poll could then be taken more seriously as more people are voting with informed opinions rather than "in a vacuum".
Sure, people will still vote at first glance. But there will be more information to absorb in the first glance as one would hope that they at least read the OP. Although I just realised that every time I say "one would hope" I'm possibly being too optimistic.
Just sayin' :P