Did you vote in the Council elections?

[Jananton]

Well, for me the page worked very well as expected so yes, of course I voted.

Greets,

Jan

 

[JimmyJamba]

I voted but like others have stated, I had a hard time taking some of the candidates seriously. Mostly because of the Q&A posts and their overall posting history.

 

[Nuclear Doughnut]

Posting History is an interesting question I'd like to ask voters. What did you look for?

 

[JimmyJamba]

Personally, if you answered any suggestion post "No, just no" or something along those lines. You won't get my vote.
Use of the word "f@**ot" also doesn't help.

 

[therimmer96]

"No, just no

well, f@**ot, I'm screwed.

 

[JimmyJamba]

^^ precisely

 

[NeonSturm]

I neither want 3 PvPers nor 3 RPers in the council. 1-2 is enough.

You should be able to choose/vote for candidates for a seat. Seat can be (PvP, …, RP, …, Any/Wildcard)
Candidates could apply to more than 1 seat, but never get more than 1 seat at a time.

With that, you would have much less candidates for a seat which makes an easier time deciding.


Personally I maked myself notes. I listed peoples in a text-editor and wrote pro/contra points for each.

Unfortunaltey this alone doesn'T save me from voting for someone who doubles the number of RP or PvP representatives, just because I don't know which has a chance to get in.

 

[BJammin]

You didn't need to rank all candidates, you could rank as many or as little as you liked. That would be ridiculous if you had to rank every single one in order.

Well, shoot...

Hey, at least now I know for next time lol

 

[kiraen]

You didn't need to rank all candidates, you could rank as many or as little as you liked. That would be ridiculous if you had to rank every single one in order.

But what if you wanted to?

I didn't rank everyone, over half were what I considered to be 'ineligible'. But those that were 'eligible' to me still deserved to be ranked. With the way the vote counting works, it could actually make a difference in some close ties.

But the way the voting system/page was set up, you were penalized for trying to make to many votes and putting any thought into it.

Any one of the following would be a great improvement for future voting:

• Get rid of the damn randomizer next time, make it a simple alphabetical sort.
• Tell me how many votes I am allowed to have
• Use quality control and don't allow so many obviously unqualified people on the ballot
• Show me the damned countdown timer

I was very much looking forward to this vote. I spent a lot of time and effort doing research and evaluating the pros and cons of each candidate. I took this seriously.

I am very disappointed in how this was handled. Do not give me an option and then slap me in the face when I try to take it.

 

[Lecic]

Get rid of the damn randomizer next time, make it a simple alphabetical sort.

I disagree. Voter fatigue means people further down the ballot are less likely to receive a vote from a voter reading a candidates policies on the spot. It's much more fair to have it randomized, to limit the chances of someone having a higher chance of being skipped just for having a name starting with a later letter.

 

[kiraen]

Then give me the option to disable it when I refresh the page, or sort however I want.
I knew who I was voting for and what ranks they were being given before I even opened the link. But because of the damn randomizer I had to hunt for every single candidate I wanted to vote for. And since you are only given a limited amount of time to make your votes, I got screwed.

 

[NeonSturm]

Then give me the option to disable it when I refresh the page, or sort however I want.

Agree. use player-ID as seed for the randomize.

 

[Shaker]

Yes. Needed to have abit more info about them and what they want in the game

 

[Gasboy]

I disagree. Voter fatigue means people further down the ballot are less likely to receive a vote from a voter reading a candidates policies on the spot. It's much more fair to have it randomized, to limit the chances of someone having a higher chance of being skipped just for having a name starting with a later letter.

If 'voter fatigue' is an issue, could this be the hint that maybe there are too many people to consider?

Also, random placement means having to search more for the people you wish to vote for.

And the second time the page said it had timed out was the last time I attempted to vote. That too is an issue.

 

[RabidBat]

I got as far as voting for SkylordLuke as he was the only name I recognised and then realised I honestly have no interest in there being a council, and just too many people for me to be bothered to sit there reading through them all.

Not sure I feel there is a reason I would consider valid for it even existing. Other games and developers do fine without such a thing.

I'll not be taking part in future.

 

[Captain_Stripes]

I disagree. Voter fatigue means people further down the ballot are less likely to receive a vote from a voter reading a candidates policies on the spot. It's much more fair to have it randomized, to limit the chances of someone having a higher chance of being skipped just for having a name starting with a later letter.

If 'voter fatigue' is an issue, could this be the hint that maybe there are too many people to consider?

Also, random placement means having to search more for the people you wish to vote for.

And the second time the page said it had timed out was the last time I attempted to vote. That too is an issue.

If voter fatigue is a legitimate issue, how about we put new candidates first, then candidates that have served before. Most people already know of our current council members and wouldn't need to read up as much on them, so reading up on newer candidates first would nearly cancel out the effects of voter fatigue.

Its a nit picky issue to me but if we want a universalized sorting system, I would think this is the fairest.

 

[Nuclear Doughnut]

I am slightly perturbed that we didn't have a pre-election 40 candidates or so is quite a bit to sort through. ALSO a major point of contention on this council is that it took so long for the election to happen. I submitted MY application in JULY. It took this long for things to happen AND things have changed since then. This election took way to long.

 

[Lecic]

f 'voter fatigue' is an issue, could this be the hint that maybe there are too many people to consider?

I am slightly perturbed that we didn't have a pre-election 40 candidates or so is quite a bit to sort through.

Some sort of improved screening would be the best solution, imo. Many US states require a certain number of signatures to get onto a ballot for an election. Perhaps something similar here would be a good idea to cut down on "junk" candidates.

Also, random placement means having to search more for the people you wish to vote for.

If you already know who you're voting for, can I suggest you use the "ctrl+f" feature in nearly every web browser?

 

[Wildcat8787]

Some sort of system to vote people to certain seats on the council would be nice. Like a seat for the devs, bug testers, builders, RPers, pvp, etc. maybe a wildcard spot. It would be more complicated but maybe have the option when people apply to only apply for certain seats? Cuts down on the sheer number of candidates on the ballot at one time. Also there really needs to be a link to the the Q & A and applications on the council page, plus a list of dates. The council page is the right spot for information regarding the council right?

 

[Lecic]

I disagree with the idea of specific seats. If the players want to focus on PvP over RP and vote a ton of PvPers in, that's how it should go.