[VOTE] Should voting for Councilors require you to purchase the game?

[Micro753]

With a points system people would either know the rules that decide if they can vote or not. If they knew the rules they (may) be able to work past the system. [...]

[...] The ideal solution, IMO? The devs should implement DukeofRealms 's point system, WITHOUT TELLING US. [...]

I have to agree with jstenholt. If a points system gets used, I think it should be kept secret from everybody except Schema and Schine. Or at least the details on how it works.

 

[Lecic]

It may not be as easy as here on starmadedock, but it is not impossible.

How would you go about implementing a system like Duke's in a community not owned by Schine, like Steam, and why should those users be discriminated against.

While true, it also discriminates against those unable to make a purchase on the internet.

You're swapping one kind of discrimination for another, and, really, since we're kind of at a point where we need to discriminate against SOMEONE to prevent alt voting, we might as well go with the smaller one (people who can't buy things online at all are probably fewer than people who don't use SMD) that also has a more effective prevention method.

 

[DukeofRealms]

We also have no idea how effective Duke's system may perform considering it has not been used. Both choices are valid options to help prevent the abuse of the system, one is more concrete but far more unforgiving, the other is more loose and inviting but may not prove as effective a deterrent.

Pretty effective when fine tuned, I've used a similar system in another circumstance

Even with Duke's system, anyone who wanted to could rig the election. It'd just be harder.

Sure. Anyone could rig the election with purchased alt accounts... it'd just be harder

Game bought would be better tbh. Duke's system practically excludes anyone that doesn't frequent the forum (unless they bought the game). Other communities shouldn't be discriminated against, so having the same requirement for everyone is better imo.

It's very simple. Purchase the game, or contribute something to the official forums to make up for that lack of purchase. If we could implement a similar system on Reddit and Steam (the only other two official locations), that would be ideal. I'm fairly certain this can't be done effectively with Steam and I don't think it's possible with Reddit. Since a big part of the council's job is here, it would make the most sense to have SMD as the alternative way to permit someone to vote. Councillors even award badges here!

This can also be done on the Russian site (Russian StarMade Dock - Русское сообщество StarMade) and the French community (StarMade.fr | Communauté France StarMade). Both of which use the same forum software as SMD.
[DOUBLEPOST=1461812132,1461812022][/DOUBLEPOST]

You're swapping one kind of discrimination for another, and, really, since we're kind of at a point where we need to discriminate against SOMEONE to prevent alt voting, we might as well go with the smaller one (people who can't buy things online at all are probably fewer than people who don't use SMD) that also has a more effective prevention method.

This doesn't make much sense. The points system would mean Purchased Users + Forum Point threshold users. Whereas the purchased system would just be Purchased Users. Points + Purchased Users > Purchased Users. If we're really going for the smaller amount, we'd be using my system :p

If we're wanting to make things easier and decrease the chances even further, we'd just restrict it to purchased users.

 

[Imagination01]

Because the Council represents all Starmade players

So the council represents all StarMade players, then how come a significant percentage of those players will not be able to have a say in who represents them?

since we're kind of at a point where we need to discriminate against SOMEONE to prevent alt voting, we might as well go with the smaller one (people who can't buy things online at all are probably fewer than people who don't use SMD) that also has a more effective prevention method.

Or you could just not discriminate against anyone.

Purchased Only Voting is the best way to ensure that no one is discriminated against

Except for people who chose not to spend money on an early access game.

Because it's the only way to prevent people from alt bombing the elections that doesn't discriminate against people from other websites or those trying to protect their privacy through TOR/VPNs/Sending a carrier pigeon to a guy in the Montana backwoods with directions for posting for you/etc.

Ok.. I have an idea...
How about we rework dukes point system to benefit both parties?

Here is the current system

Spoiler

We could also do it by having a point threshold, a user would have to meet X number of points to be able to vote. I'll give an example.

Number of points to vote: 10

30 points: Purchase Game
3 points: Registration date longer than X amount of days
Base point of 6 points: Meet minimum post count to get 6 points and 1 more point is awarded every time they meet X more number of posts
1 point: Uploaded avatar
1 point: Signature set
-10 points: TOR/Proxy IP
-10 points: Throwaway email
-10 points: Forum ban

Add other positive and negative factors to decide whether the person is eligible for vote, the more comprehensive the system is, the better.

Ok firstly let's increase the number of points required to vote to 50

Then we can remove the -10 for TOR/Proxy IP and Throwaway email (so privacy freaks like me are not discriminated against)

Then add
+5 points for signature set and +5 for avatar set
+5 points for approved community content upload (key wording here is approved, so that means content there to get points could be denied)
+70 points for brought game (so buying the game means you can vote immediately unless you lose more than 20 points)
+1 point for receiving a positive rating on a post
-15 points for temporary forum ban
-1 point for every 2 warning points received
-an additional 5 points if a temporary ban was longer than 2 weeks
-25 points if you received a permanent ban
-9001 points if a permanent ban was received for ban evasion

With these new settings...

HEY PRESTO! WE HAVE A SOLUTION

Well looking at the voting thus far, I think that there is a very clear majority in favor of making voting for council more restrictive, and of the two restrictive choices, just one vote under a 3/4 majority in favor of a paywall. Maybe it's just me, but aside from a few very heated opponents (one of whom is involved in a good part of the reason this is even an issue), the community at large is almost unanimously in agreement.

No... 50 or so people out of on the entire community have voted, that is not "The community at large is almost unanimously in agreement"

The ideal solution, IMO? The devs should implement DukeofRealms 's point system, WITHOUT TELLING US. That way, dumb asshats who feel the need to rig an election for a volunteer position on the forum for a video game that is still in alpha could still waste their time with fake accounts, and have zero impact on said election.

+1 if people do not know how the system works, they cannot bypass it because they do not know how to...

 

[Aynslei]

The only one that can decide what and how the point system functions is Duke or Schine, this is NOT a debate about how the point system should function.

Any pursuit of shaping the point system is against the very premise of the debate.

This is a debate about whether or not the point system should be used or only purchased accounts used for voting qualification if any form of qualification is used at all. (Which at this point it seems some form of anti-rigging protection will be implemented)

 

[Imagination01]

The only one that can decide what and how the point system functions is Duke or Schine, this is NOT a debate about how the point system should function.

Any pursuit of shaping the point system is against the very premise of the debate.

This is a debate about whether or not the point system should be used or only purchased accounts used for voting qualification if any form of qualification is used at all. (Which at this point it seems some form of anti-rigging protection will be implemented)

\

I do not see how discussing one of the options that people vote on is not relevent -_-

I am trying to come make a compromise to benefit all parties, I am not forcing Duke/Schine to use what I came up with, I am just adding my 2 cents, my modification to Duke's system will allow all players to vote while still catching alts.

StarMade Dock Mods are pretty good at catching them out currently, this will also make it easier for them to do so.

 

[Aynslei]

\

I do not see how discussing one of the options that people vote on is not relevent -_-

I am trying to come make a compromise to benefit all parties, I am not forcing Duke/Schine to use what I came up with, I am just adding my 2 cents, my modification to Duke's system will allow all players to vote while still catching alts.

StarMade Dock Mods are pretty good at catching them out currently, this will also make it easier for them to do so.

It is not off topic, rather it is a taboo aspect of the conversation at hand. Let me explain.

What we are discussing here is quite literally the revocation of suffrage based on a factor.
Aka Disfranchisement, IE the removal of the right to vote.

The factor being if the account has purchased the game or meets some defined possibly unknown set or rules devised by a neutral hosting party.

What makes it taboo for us , the non neutral members in the debate, is that any discussion in where we try to change or manipulate that defined set of rules will no longer make it neutral. It is akin to a mangled form gerrymandering, voter caging, and other forms of voter fraud.
One party could never trust the other party because far too many factors that we lack the information to process would be involved.

Neither side should seek to manipulate the open option in this case as the "Points System" would be chosen to prevent voter fraud instead of the more strict single rule of needing to only own the game.

I would ask that you instead seek to explain why you feel the points system is a better choice than the owner option, or instead why neither should be used.

 

[Imagination01]

It is not off topic, rather it is a taboo aspect of the conversation at hand. Let me explain.

What we are discussing here is quite literally the revocation of suffrage based on a factor.
Aka Disfranchisement, IE the removal of the right to vote.

The factor being if the account has purchased the game or meets some defined possibly unknown set or rules devised by a neutral hosting party.

What makes it taboo for us , the non neutral members in the debate, is that any discussion in where we try to change or manipulate that defined set of rules will no longer make it neutral. It is akin to a mangled form gerrymandering, voter caging, and other forms of voter fraud.
One party could never trust the other party because far too many factors that we lack the information to process would be involved.

Neither side should seek to manipulate the open option in this case as the "Points System" would be chosen to prevent voter fraud instead of the more strict single rule of needing to only own the game.

I would ask that you instead seek to explain why you feel the points system is a better choice than the owner option, or instead why neither should be used.

I still do not understand how that makes my post "taboo" might just be because I am sleepy as fuck, but eh...

 

[Aynslei]

Getting some rest will most likely help.

Not all of that post was out place.
(No... 50 or so people out of on the entire community have voted, that is not "The community at large is almost unanimously in agreement")
This is true, it is far too early to rush to a decision.

So is this.
(+1 if people do not know how the system works, they cannot bypass it because they do not know how to.)
That is a good statement to express a positive of the points system.

 

[CyberTao]

+5 points for approved community content upload (key wording here is approved, so that means content there to get points could be denied)

Content is automatically approved. It used to need some form of approval from mods, but said system was removed and probably wont return, due to the amount of work it would entail in the future.

-1 point for every 2 warning points received

I might be an ass, but I dont see why I could potentially lose my representation because I like to argue, bitch, and/or complain.

 

[Master_Artificer]

So the council represents all StarMade players, then how come a significant percentage of those players will not be able to have a say in who represents them?

Or you could just not discriminate against anyone.

Except for people who chose not to spend money on an early access game.

Ok.. I have an idea...
How about we rework dukes point system to benefit both parties?

Ok firstly let's increase the number of points required to vote to 50

Then we can remove the -10 for TOR/Proxy IP and Throwaway email (so privacy freaks like me are not discriminated against)

Then add
+5 points for signature set and +5 for avatar set
+5 points for approved community content upload (key wording here is approved, so that means content there to get points could be denied)
+70 points for brought game (so buying the game means you can vote immediately unless you lose more than 20 points)
+1 point for receiving a positive rating on a post
-15 points for temporary forum ban
-1 point for every 2 warning points received
-an additional 5 points if a temporary ban was longer than 2 weeks
-25 points if you received a permanent ban
-9001 points if a permanent ban was received for ban evasion

With these new settings...

HEY PRESTO! WE HAVE A SOLUTION

No... 50 or so people out of on the entire community have voted, that is not "The community at large is almost unanimously in agreement"
+1 if people do not know how the system works, they cannot bypass it because they do not know how to...

Well for your last statement, yeah 50 people voted, but we can probably extrapolate that out and assume that the option that is largely in the lead to remain leading the polls if you were to theoretically poll everyone somehow.

Also, for your point system, I could be permabanned, like, at least 250 times and still be eligible to vote...
In fact, I think if I were to be caught for ban evasion, I would be well on my way to recovering from that really high figure.
Needs to have less positives, like from positive forum ratings, and harsher negatives, like caught using IP masking software. Warning points, you cant really get a lot of them before ban and your system makes them worthless anyways, either spike the price or don't bother.

And we still need to remember that plenty of people only ever visit here to ask for help in the game support section or to make a meaningful contribution in the suggestions about something they came up with off the top of their head, so we can't make it too complex and alienate people.

How about we ask what the current councilors think? There are 7 of them, so you can't get a tie, and they are representative of the community, they could be our delegates for issues like these.

 

[Reilly Reese]

Well for your last statement, yeah 50 people voted, but we can probably extrapolate that out and assume that the option that is largely in the lead to remain leading the polls if you were to theoretically poll everyone somehow.

Also, for your point system, I could be permabanned, like, at least 250 times and still be eligible to vote...
In fact, I think if I were to be caught for ban evasion, I would be well on my way to recovering from that really high figure.
Needs to have less positives, like from positive forum ratings, and harsher negatives, like caught using IP masking software. Warning points, you cant really get a lot of them before ban and your system makes them worthless anyways, either spike the price or don't bother.

And we still need to remember that plenty of people only ever visit here to ask for help in the game support section or to make a meaningful contribution in the suggestions about something they came up with off the top of their head, so we can't make it too complex and alienate people.

How about we ask what the current councilors think? There are 7 of them, so you can't get a tie, and they are representative of the community, they could be our delegates for issues like these.

His system is notably friendly to easily made alts.

 

[Aynslei]

And this is why I spoke against debate over the rules of the points system rather than debate against the choice to implement either option if any at all.

All this will do is derail the original topic.

 

[Master_Artificer]

Also would it be socially acceptable to drop 100$ to "support the game" and also have 10 votes for myself?
I mean, I guess I could do that now without paying anything, but what about after a system is in place?

Would there be a little * to the side saying 'pls don't do this' or would it be acceptable practice?
Hypothetically of course.

 

[Imagination01]

Well for your last statement, yeah 50 people voted, but we can probably extrapolate that out and assume that the option that is largely in the lead to remain leading the polls if you were to theoretically poll everyone somehow.

If you extrapolated with this vote, in the industry, they call this a non-representative sample (a subset of a statistical population that does not accurately reflect the members of the entire population) If you wanted to extrapolate, the sample would need to be a representative sample (a subset of a statistical population that accurately reflects the members of the entire population)


The current vote does not accurately represent the community as a whole, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Perhaps if Schine did a controlled representative sample, they could get a better idea of the communities opinion on the subject, and it would only require about 100 people to do....

EDIT: I might PM DukeofRealms to see what he can do about a representative sample

 

[karkinosz]

EDIT: I might PM DukeofRealms to see what he can do about a representative sample

If you want then feel free. The vote itself is non-binding to begin with, just to show schine that there is interest in this course of action. Ultimately schine itself will make a choice as to if they want to implement this or a similar system.

 

[FlyingDebris]

No matter what way you look at it though, it does provide a general idea on what forumgoers think about it. It might not be a hundred percent accurate, but with already more than 50 votes there's a very clear majority in this sample.

 

[Master_Artificer]

No matter what way you look at it though, it does provide a general idea on what forumgoers think about it. It might not be a hundred percent accurate, but with already more than 50 votes there's a very clear majority in this sample.

Exactly my point.

 

[Imagination01]

No matter what way you look at it though, it does provide a general idea on what forumgoers think about it. It might not be a hundred percent accurate, but with already more than 50 votes there's a very clear majority in this sample.

No It doesn't, it gives an idea of the opinions of 50 or so people

Besides, a decision like this is more than just a forum decision, you would have a very different result if banned players were allowed to vote, but then again "Their opinions don't matter! They are not active on the forums! They should have no say on this!"

There is much more than 50 people who use this forum
[DOUBLEPOST=1462045148,1462044483][/DOUBLEPOST]

If you want then feel free. The vote itself is non-binding to begin with, just to show schine that there is interest in this course of action. Ultimately schine itself will make a choice as to if they want to implement this or a similar system.

Duke did say that the poll was just to show schine interest on the subject like you said, but the more accurate the poll is to the actual communities opinion the better, the current poll is basicly everyone who has brought the game voting yes, I know a lot of the community has brought the game, but not 68.5% of the entire community of registered players

 

[SkylordLuke]

No It doesn't, it gives an idea of the opinions of 50 or so people

Besides, a decision like this is more than just a forum decision, you would have a very different result if banned players were allowed to vote, but then again "Their opinions don't matter! They are not active on the forums! They should have no say on this!"

There is much more than 50 people who use this forum

Ever heard of statistics and margin of error?
The minimum recommended size of any survey can be 50 people easy..
which gives us a margin of error of only 4.5% even if there was a bigger sample size.