Ladle 34: Voting Thread (CLOSED)

[owned]

I find it rather silly that you included 0.00 as an option while you didn't include any thing between 2 and .75 because "it hasn't been widely tested." 0.00 has never been really tested in a fortress server.

[sinewav]

In the discussion, there were at least 2 people who suggested no holes (neither was me). There just wasn't a very good discussion about intermediate sizes from anyone besides you or me, and quite a few people suggested the 'DS' size.

Please remember to bring up intermediate sizes again next quarter.

[DDMJ]

ATTENTION!: Server admins, please update your settings before the Ladle.

Code: Select all

RINCLUDE ladle34.cfg(http://durka.ath.cx/resource/ladle/ladle34.cfg)

[Titanoboa]

No woned it's not silly.
I know you're a smart person, so why don't you just think one step further?

[owned]

In the discussion, there were at least 2 people who suggested no holes (neither was me). There just wasn't a very good discussion about intermediate sizes from anyone besides you or me, and quite a few people suggested the 'DS' size.

Please remember to bring up intermediate sizes again next quarter.

1. No holes were suggested, but intermediate sizes were also.
2. Simlarly to intermediate sizes, there also wasn't any good discussion on having no holes. You could've at least put one intermediate size to make things fair. (If anything, there was a better discussion concerning intermediate sizes)
3. While the exact specific intermediate size was not discussed, I don't see what the problem was with adding a size that is right in the middle between 2 and .75.

No woned it's not silly.
I know you're a smart person, so why don't you just think one step further?

If you believe I'm drawing the wrong conclusion, please give me evidence for why I'm wrong, don't just say that I'm wrong.

[sinewav]

You could've at least put one intermediate size to make things fair.

I challenge you to come up with one intermediate size that people wouldn't question or complain about. If anything, people would just say, "huh? why that?" and pick the one they knew, which was the DS size. If I chose 20% smaller like you suggested, Then people would be complain to me and you, as if we were in some sort of conspiracy together.

The other reason I chose not to include other sizes is simply "too many choices." That sounds funny to say, but here is a scenario: let's see what the vote would have looked like if I included every size mentioned...

Holes: unchanged (2.00) | 1.60 | 1.50 | 1.25 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.40 | no holes (0.00)

How easy do you think it would be to determine a clear winner from that lot? If you like, we can use this same list next quarter and see. It doesn't matter to me.

It kind of hurts my feelings that people thought I did a bad job. Since I'm not even playing Ladles right now, I do this without any ulterior motive. I do it because I think the Ladle vote is important. Anyone remember what it was like before this voting started? It was kind of a mess - and that's what led to this system in the first place. Thanks to this process, we have been able to manage all sorts of things related to the Ladle: server locations and flow, sever color names, team size, scoring distribution, zone conquer settings, ...the list goes on.

Keep in mind, this change in hole size is the first settings change since Ladle 21. That last change, you might remember, was to have 6 players per team instead of 8 - and as you can see by the current vote this was a good decision. I think the smaller holes are too. But hopefully we can tweak this next time.

[Concord]

This is ridiculous. I have several good reasons for why Woned should stop whining and I have several putdowns of him as well. I decided this just doesn't garner either.

epsy: please restrain your modding and merging in threads that need proper documentation (like this one). It makes it impossible to know if something was suggested in the proper place at the proper time. I understand the desire for separation and clarity, but it becomes revisionist history in cases like these. Thanks.

[owned]

This is ridiculous. I have several good reasons for why Woned should stop whining and I have several putdowns of him as well. I decided this just doesn't garner either.

So now you've decided that you are so high above me that what I say doesn't warrant a response? Or do you think that I'm just complaining for no reason? If it's the former, then I suggest you get off your high horse and actually talk. If it's the latter, sine specifically said to criticize the vote in his first post after it was finished. I'm asking sine why he didn't have an intermediate value because I think there should've been at least one. Unlike you however, who is just trying to annoy me for the sake of it, sine is actually trying to explain to me with a reasoned response. If you aren't going to make any contribution to the thread and would rather just take shots at someone, I suggest you stop posting.

I challenge you to come up with one intermediate size that people wouldn't question or complain about. If anything, people would just say, "huh? why that?" and pick the one they knew, which was the DS size. If I chose 20% smaller like you suggested, Then people would be complain to me and you, as if we were in some sort of conspiracy together.

But the thing is, I don't understand why anyone would complain about an extra option. (Yes, I am "complaining" about the no hole option, but that's only to compare it to an intermediate option. I personally have nothing against having no holes on the vote.) If anything, I think some players would like that you added another option, because from the people I've talked to, there has been a significant amount of respondents that think .75 is too small but 2.0 is too big.

The other reason I chose not to include other sizes is simply "too many choices." That sounds funny to say, but here is a scenario: let's see what the vote would have looked like if I included every size mentioned...

I think this problem could be solved by just choosing an arbitrary number that is close the average of 2 and .75. Of course it wouldn't be the exact ideal intermediate value, but it would at least represent the people who think that .75 is too small and 2.0 is too big.

It kind of hurts my feelings that people thought I did a bad job. Since I'm not even playing Ladles right now, I do this without any ulterior motive. I do it because I think the Ladle vote is important.

I don't think you did a bad job. There was one part, however, that I disagreed with, and that's why I'm discussing this with you now. Also, I don't think anyone is thinking that you are doing this in a biased way. We all recognize that you are trying your best to do the best job possible.

[Goodygumdrops]

You could've at least put one intermediate size to make things fair.

I challenge you to come up with one intermediate size that people wouldn't question or complain about. If anything, people would just say, "huh? why that?" and pick the one they knew, which was the DS size. If I chose 20% smaller like you suggested, Then people would be complain to me and you, as if we were in some sort of conspiracy together.

some people would be displeased by each of the choices you did include, too

The other reason I chose not to include other sizes is simply "too many choices." That sounds funny to say, but here is a scenario: let's see what the vote would have looked like if I included every size mentioned...

Holes: unchanged (2.00) | 1.60 | 1.50 | 1.25 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.40 | no holes (0.00)

How easy do you think it would be to determine a clear winner from that lot? If you like, we can use this same list next quarter and see. It doesn't matter to me.

who suggested that? we asked for one more choice

It kind of hurts my feelings that people thought I did a bad job. Since I'm not even playing Ladles right now, I do this without any ulterior motive. I do it because I think the Ladle vote is important.

awwww, would it be easier on you if i just hurl personal insults at you instead of addressing the points you bring up in your posts?

[sinewav]

I think this problem could be solved by just choosing an arbitrary number that is close the average of 2 and .75.

Sure! It's fine by me, really. I personally don't care if people want 1.43210001 sized holes. My point through all of this, in case anyone missed it, was that this conversation we're having right now, the one about the hole size, should have taken place in the three weeks before I posted the voting thread.

So let's do this owned. You pick an arbitrary size and post it in the next quarterly discussion, get someone other than your girlfriend to say "yeah, it's a good size," and we'll be sure to include it in the next vote. If you know people who want a larger option, let's hear from them! (...in 3 months)



BTW, that bit about your girlfriend saying "it's a good size" is a joke. In case you were wondering. You know, because when girls say "it's a good size" that means it's small. But I don't know this from personal experience, so I might be wrong. That's just what I hear. I mean, it's not like I've never talked about stuff like that with a girlfriend. It's just, usually their complaints are about how I'm mean and kind of a jerk to them, never about, you know, down there. In that area.

[Word]

It's just, usually their complaints are about how I'm mean and kind of a jerk to them, never about, you know, down there. In that area.

your fortress zone?

[compguygene]

This is utter baloney! Only one alternate hole size has been tested and liked. That hole size is .75! The next person that whine's about the outcome of the vote, or the vote itself, deserves the utter disdain of all of us. If you don't like it, start a discussion about it after the ladle! Since I do NOT play in Ladles, I don't say much, because all I really do is host servers and spectate in my servers if I have the time. But really, you complainers can just be exasperating. I follow the Arma forums at least 4-6 times a day, in case somebody needs to pm me about a problem with any of my servers or the servers that I host. Seeing this discussion turn to criticism of sine.wav's decision to start a voting thread that is reasonable, is just plain ANNOYING!

[MaZuffeR]

I don't really see why it is relevant if an alternative hole size between 2 and 0.75 had been tested or not. We know what the change from 2 to 0.75 did to gameplay, there is no reason that a change to something between 2 and 0.75 would change gameplay in a different way.

[owned]

So let's do this owned. You pick an arbitrary size and post it in the next quarterly discussion, get someone other than your girlfriend to say "yeah, it's a good size," and we'll be sure to include it in the next vote. If you know people who want a larger option, let's hear from them! (...in 3 months)

Sounds good. I'll try to ask around for what people think the best intermediate value is. Once I've reached a good number I'll talk about it on the forums.

@comp You should read some of my post(s) over because a lot of what you are saying is either completely ignoring my points, or is misrepresenting my opinion.

[compguygene]

So let's do this owned. You pick an arbitrary size and post it in the next quarterly discussion, get someone other than your girlfriend to say "yeah, it's a good size," and we'll be sure to include it in the next vote. If you know people who want a larger option, let's hear from them! (...in 3 months)

Sounds good. I'll try to ask around for what people think the best intermediate value is. Once I've reached a good number I'll talk about it on the forums.

@comp You should read some of my post(s) over because a lot of what you are saying is either completely ignoring my points, or is misrepresenting my opinion.

My apologies. I probably shouldn't ever write a forum post like that when I am angry in real life After having taken the time to re-read the entire thread, I see just how out of line my post was.