Vogue Ban Discussion
Moderator: Light
- kyle
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1876
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
- Contact:
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
ultimately there is only 1 vote per team and 1 vote per server owner.
If the teams players don't have a team leader that is going to ask their players about the vote, maybe the players should form a new team. I know for a fact that CT's vote was based on their players input.
If the teams players don't have a team leader that is going to ask their players about the vote, maybe the players should form a new team. I know for a fact that CT's vote was based on their players input.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
So you think people are voting to ban Liz longer to make rival clans weaker? Seems legit, since you know she wasn't in a clan when we voted to ban her for 12 months, and her first offense she was in Acceleration, which I'm pretty sure she had left before she was even banned for the original one month.dinobro wrote:Sure, they are supposed to. What's your guaranty they are doing so?
What's your guaranty they won't vote for maximum punishment because it's in their interest to make rival clan weaker?
All this speak of an appeal, do you really think the majority of the ladle community is going to vote to let Liz back after serving one month of a 12 month ban? Congrats you behaved yourself for one month! Should we also reward people who don't go out of their way to cause drama every month? Maybe if she can go 3-6 months without doing anything wrong, then we can have talks about shortening the ban. Until then, why should we even consider it, because some newer clan needs a spectator coach to help them see what's wrong with their playing? I don't think so.
bye
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
But I never said to vote right now.
I'm just applying raw logic to your system to show how flawed it is.
I'm just applying raw logic to your system to show how flawed it is.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
LOL first of all magi, you act as if we "need" it, we do not I am perfectly capable of handling my own strategies and calling shit out during ladle, I just don't get to see the entire grid and I don't enjoy ladle as much when I have to, this is why liz was brought in.. We don't NEED it, but its nice of her and helpful.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
That's the whole point of an appeal/revote, to see where the community stands after a breather. Nowhere was said that this would happen a month after the sentence. We're only trying to make it so appealing is possible in the first place.Vagi wrote:All this speak of an appeal, do you really think the majority of the ladle community is going to vote to let Liz back after serving one month of a 12 month ban?
Have you ever considered that you're not the only one with an opinion?Vagi wrote:why should we even consider it
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
You're definitely right about your logic being raw, as in half-baked, not well thought out.dinobro wrote:I'm just applying raw logic
I think you're missing something here in your thought process. These players that are supposedly not being heard are on ladle teams, correct? If not, then I'm not really sure they should have much say. So let's just continue with the assumption that the players who are not being heard are those who are on ladle teams. What a team leader does, or should do, is take the opinions of all of the players on his/her team and use that as their vote. How then, are we ignoring the voice of all the players? If the team leader is not basing his vote on what his teammates have said, or even asking them at all, then these teammates should do as Kyle suggested and find a new team. As far as I know, nobody has come forth yet to say that their team leader didn't vote as their team had decided. Your argument that this whole process is run by biased people is a bit ridiculous since all the players involved in ladle actually do have a voice, which is their team leader.dinobro wrote:You only take votes from team leaders and ignoring voice of all the players, spectators and other, as you called them, ladle enthusiasts.
Side note- Can you imagine trying to run a poll for all the players of ladle? Many of them don't ever check the forums, it would be incredibly hectic. This system makes sense as all the teams have to do is come to a consensus, then it's only the team leader's job to report the results to the ladle enthusiast running the poll.
Prema wrote:The second match starts, a new beginning,
Nanu and Prema, Sui and Ninja,
versus those same old hoes grinning.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
LOL she did not even do that.Magi wrote:Congrats you behaved yourself for one month!
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
How big is playerpool from all the players that played in last 3 ladles? 50? I don't think it even hits that number. You collect votes for a week and then go with the majority on no/yes questions.
If anyone thinks it's so much effort then they probably shouldn't handle collecting votes. Because it's not.
On a sidenote, you said it's not well thought and "half-baked". Prove me wrong instead of throwing vague statements. Any punishment system that relies on bias of the people that do the ruling is a badly constructed one. It's an obvious fact that you can't argue with. But I rest my case.
If anyone thinks it's so much effort then they probably shouldn't handle collecting votes. Because it's not.
On a sidenote, you said it's not well thought and "half-baked". Prove me wrong instead of throwing vague statements. Any punishment system that relies on bias of the people that do the ruling is a badly constructed one. It's an obvious fact that you can't argue with. But I rest my case.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
dinobro wrote:How big is playerpool from all the players that played in last 3 ladles? 50? I don't think it even hits that number. You collect votes for a week and then go with the majority on no/yes questions.
If anyone thinks it's so much effort then they probably shouldn't handle collecting votes. Because it's not.
On a sidenote, you said it's not well thought and "half-baked". Prove me wrong instead of throwing vague statements. Any punishment system that relies on bias of the people that do the ruling is a badly constructed one. It's an obvious fact that you can't argue with. But I rest my case.
- kyle
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1876
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
- Contact:
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
Not everyone has hours to sent out PM's the the players that can vote, verify that a player does not have 5 forum accounts, potentially go to multiple forums just to ask that player to vote (based an the authority they authenticated with for the vote to ensure that it is that player) Some authorities used, don't even have a way to PM players.dinobro wrote:How big is playerpool from all the players that played in last 3 ladles? 50? I don't think it even hits that number. You collect votes for a week and then go with the majority on no/yes questions.
If anyone thinks it's so much effort then they probably shouldn't handle collecting votes. Because it's not.
You are looking at a lot of time to do such a thing, if it lets say triples the work (most likely more) who would be likely to step up and make a vote, Noone. this is why TEAM leaders should ask their players, it's like the US electoral college, you are trusting in them that your vote is properly represented. and if as a player, you can't trust your team leader, than that's not good for the team anyway.
and I don't see you stepping up to do anything productive.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
Do you notice the "we" in there? If you're too deluded to notice, I think everyone here has voiced their opinion and I'm just repeating similar things to what they've said, that right now not many people are interested in talking about this appeal happening any time soon. People have said that you're better off waiting to talk about appealing. So when the time comes go ahead and make a thread about it, but for now, I highly doubt anything that gets said in this thread will be for you benefit.Vogue wrote:Have you ever considered that you're not the only one with an opinion?Magi wrote:why should we even consider it
As for you Gaz, if you don't need her help then why are you bringing in a banned player, who you always seem to argue with and get mad at. History tends to repeat itself, and it always seems like you and Liz get in fights and end up killing a clan. But hey, if you want to go down that path for the, I don't know, 4th time? be my guest. I'm just saying that because one team wants her unbanned doesn't mean the rest of us do.
bye
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
name the clans that died due to me and gaz "fighting"Magi wrote:always seems like you and Liz get in fights and end up killing a clan
go on
i really want to read this
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
Back to spewing nonsense again?dinobro wrote:How big is playerpool from all the players that played in last 3 ladles? 50? I don't think it even hits that number. You collect votes for a week and then go with the majority on no/yes questions.
If anyone thinks it's so much effort then they probably shouldn't handle collecting votes. Because it's not.
On a sidenote, you said it's not well thought and "half-baked". Prove me wrong instead of throwing vague statements. Any punishment system that relies on bias of the people that do the ruling is a badly constructed one. It's an obvious fact that you can't argue with. But I rest my case.
I could go ahead and refute all of your points, but this is what it boils down to. Not only have you failed to demonstrate why the way team leaders and server owners vote is 'extremely flawed', you also falsely assume that people should solely be judged on the offense they have committed.
In the real world, if two persons both commit a murder -- the first one showing no remorse and laughing in the victim's relatives' faces, the second one feeling terribly guilty, wondering how he could have been so stupid --, do you think the former will get a higher sentence than the latter? You bet your ass he will. Is it dawning on you who Liz in this analogy might be?
You also seem to be under the impression that the lack of an option to appeal takes away any legitimacy from the current system. In a community with less than a hundred people, would you suggest to establish multiple independent and unbiased juries, one for first instances and another for appeals? Is it necessary? Is it feasible? Unlike huge societies with all their complexities, this is a tiny community that doesn't need an elaborate punishment system. There are a few simple rules you have to abide by, and if once every five years a person comes by that doesn't do so, the community will decide what happens, because that's the reasonable thing to do in a community this size.
So instead of scolding the community for dealing with a tiresome nuisance as is its right to do, why don't you tell Liz to get her shit together because in the end she is the one to blame?
Last edited by wap on Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
A seperate post to say that it really doesn't matter what my personal relationship to any SDP member is. What some of you fail to realize is that I don't plan on appealing any time soon, Ladle Master + Enthusiasts notified me that there is no appealing process in the first place. That's why I'm trying to make sure, right now, that when the time comes.. I'll actually be able to appeal because there will be such a process.
So unbunch your panties, I'm not trying to get a lesser sentence at this moment.
So unbunch your panties, I'm not trying to get a lesser sentence at this moment.
Re: Vogue Ban Discussion
Magi don't get me wrong I said I don't need her but her help is nice, I for one like I stated can only see half the grid, I can't provide assistance to those at defense, this is a tactic both mym and ks used for a bit in ladle and it helped them out a bit, plus I stress too much on the defense in ladle to actually focus on my job at attack. That is why she is here, its not a necessity but more of a luxury.