Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[epsy]

Talking about holes, EXPLOSION_RADIUS is currently set to 1.25 on fort4.eu.

[sinewav]

Is "Round/Zone score: 4/6 | 6/4 | 10/0" really clear enough?

And we of course have the 6v6 | 7v7 | 8v8 vote as usual?

I'm going to go ahead and say let's ditch 10/0 as an option. It's never even come close to having the support of 6/4. And the same goes for the 6v6/8v8 argument. 6v6 has won almost unanimously the last 3 times we voted.

But yeah, let's investigate these hole sizes more. I'm thinking: 2.00 1.25 0.75 right now. Also, too many options may leave us deadlocked with no clear winner. So start politicking!

[Goodygumdrops]

-1 for a hole makes much more sense than tinkering with hole sizes

both changes feel unnecessary in the current metagame

making these types of changes (helping defense) seems to decrease the edge more talented teams have

[owned]

I feel like I'm forgetting something.

This is from the first page.

Aliases - Does the impostor login/OP/authority solution do anything about this? === Maybe the question can be: Should aliases be allowed? And the answers can be: yes but the name must be used on the challenge board|yes, and it doesn't have to match the challenge board|no, they must use their regular name
Servers - TSP in particular, Ladle 32, Ladle 34 === It seems like comp has found away around his problems as has TX, so this isn't necessary.
Time Limit - Ladle 34 === I don't think anyone other than 5-10 people are in support of it, even those who are don't know exactly what the time limit should be
Mandatory Ladle Stats - this is common now, but I think it's a good thing to have them available === dlh has them
Walls Stay Up Delay - Discussion thread here === No one really is in support of changing anything.
Ladles Every Month/Every Other Month - Discussed for Ladle 32 here. === See above
Global Mods
How to start an official Ladle match === No real problem with this, there should be a center message announcement that the game is starting.
Disciplinary Action === This seems too broad for a vote.

I wrote what I think about each of them inside of appa's quote.

@sine/titan Wouldn't it be best for the intermediate hole size to be 1.4? Corn made this post a while back and it made a lot of sense.

[sinewav]

@sine/titan Wouldn't it be best for the intermediate hole size to be 1.4? Corn made this post a while back and it made a lot of sense.

Yes, good catch. I forgot all about it. 1.4m was very friendly. I wonder of people will thin that is too large after months of 0.75m holes?

Aliases will be allowed if we vote to require authentication for players. It's a simple yes/no vote.

Server issues will always be issues until more people provide them. Gene's are satisfactory, and he keeps switching hosts to better the performance. No vote.

Disciplinary Action really means "ban". There is nothing else we can do really. And we should keep the punishment as slight as possible, within reason. We can always turn it up for repeat offenders, right? I think a simple "banned for he following Ladle" would be a sufficient starting point. And that's pretty much a yes/no vote.

You're right about all that other stuff though. Very little support.

[PokeMaster]

About the punishment system: I'm in favor of a stricter punishment, but I'll be satisfied with any. Let's make sure to put that in the vote.

Logging in is hardly a hastle, so there's no reason we shouldn't do it. It doesn't harm a fly.

I have a proposal about the way we vote on changes. Not all votes are a simple yes/no ballot, and many times there are an array of options. For example, take the explosion_radius poll. Many people were not pleased by the options because not everybody wanted one of the options, yet at the same time, similar options would weaken the votes for a possible winner (for example, 0.75 could have been split into 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25). What I suggest for polls like this, where there is a range of options that can be chosen from, is that we split the votes into 2+ stages. For example, right now, if we want to vote on changing holesize right now, we could make the vote like this:

First round vote
expliosion_radius: 0 | 0.25 - 0.75 | 1.0 - 1.5 | 1.75+ |

Once a winner is picked, then do another vote. The last three categories could be split into:

| 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |
| 1.0 | 1.25 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
| 1.75 | 2.0 | 2.5 |

or something to that effect. The idea is, to first find out what range the majority wants, and then pick within that range. And the teams that voted for a different category other than the winner originally will be able to cast their vote in the 2nd round, so that the overall winning explosion_radius will be a pretty good average of what the entire community wants. (for example, 0.25 - 0.75 is chosen, but a large group voted for 1.75+ so the winning explosion_radius will be 0.75).

So does that sound like a good system? The only problem would be getting all the votes done in time and making sure everybody knows to vote again later.

[Titanoboa]

The only problem would be getting all the votes done in time and making sure everybody knows to vote again later.

Yeah. I think that's the problem, and I don't know how (there are probably 100+ different ways) we could implement it to fit to our system.

[Z-Man]

Umm, for continuous votes, just use the median system. Let each team just vote for a number, and the winning number is then one that has half the number of votes above it and half below (*). You can't cheat by voting strategically ("hole size 100, lulz" will, provided everyone else votes sensibly, only count as "holes as big as possible" ) there.

(*) more pedantically, less than or exactly half the number of votes below and less than or exactly half the number of votes above. There may be a whole interval of allowed results, in which case you pick the center of that interval.

[dreadlord]

And we of course have the 6v6 | 7v7 | 8v8 vote as usual?

I do not think that we need a vote on that, 7v7 and 8v8 would be quiet too many players on the grid ...

[sinewav]

...for continuous votes, just use the median system.

If everyone is cool with splitting the difference in an unlikely tie, I'm all for it. I mean, if there ever was an occasion to use this method, it's with the hole vote for sure.

Everyone good with this? Hopefully we don't get a hole score like 1.1111, heh.

[Titanoboa]

Yes no arguments here

[dlh]

Are these settings actually for Ladle 36, or 37? We went off schedule and voted for 34 (should have been 33), and there have been only two Ladles played since then.

[sinewav]

Are these settings actually for Ladle 36, or 37? We went off schedule and voted for 34 (should have been 33), and there have been only two Ladles played since then.

Yeah. We missed voting on Ladle 33 because I was busy and no one picked up the slack. We should try to stay on schedule, no? And that last vote was so full of arguments - I imagined that people would want to repeal everything as soon as possible (I guess I was wrong).

[Titanoboa]

(I guess I was wrong).

I back you up - let's stay on schedule.

[PokeMaster]

Okay the median system sounds great. So what options do we propose? 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.4, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0? does that sound good? I included quarter increments and then also the 1.4 based on what woned posted.

And can we agree that there shouldn't be anything over 2.0?