Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[sinewav]

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20425 --> this is the voting thread, no need to talk here anymore, things that we are voting on are discussed yet ...

Ignore this guy. We can still and should use this thread for discussion. We can come up with good stuff for the next vote, and we don't start a new thread with the same content.

[dreadlord]

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20425 --> this is the voting thread, no need to talk here anymore, things that we are voting on are discussed yet ...

Ignore this guy. We can still and should use this thread for discussion. We can come up with good stuff for the next vote, and we don't start a new thread with the same content.

w00t .. okay ignore me

[Shock]

Add 5vs5, 5vs5 means one player less to gank the zone. Also it means, that teams can't lose more than half of their players in order to play 3vs1.

5vs5 with bigger holes and everyone will be happy

About the time, just lower the score to 80, if that bothers anyone.

Woahhhh, a good idea

[wildcat]

Interesting. Less players on a team means we will have more teams which could cause time issues. However, I would rather see fewer players on a team before we start adding more players to each team. 5v5 should create more room for attackers as well

[Titanoboa]

DATES
Ladle 36: August 1st | August 8th | Don't Care
Ladle 37: September 5th | September 12th | Don't Care
Ladle 38: October 3rd | October 10th | Don't Care

I think it might be a good idea to make it official that "if there's a tie, the first sunday of the month wins by default". Because if it does end as a tie there'll surely be a hot-headed discussion about which date it should ultimately be... especially if there's no rule about it.


Please disagree if I'm wrong, because as of now I can't really see anything bad with this suggestion.

[owned]

DATES
Ladle 36: August 1st | August 8th | Don't Care
Ladle 37: September 5th | September 12th | Don't Care
Ladle 38: October 3rd | October 10th | Don't Care

I think it might be a good idea to make it official that "if there's a tie, the first sunday of the month wins by default". Because if it does end as a tie there'll surely be a hot-headed discussion about which date it should ultimately be... especially if there's no rule about it.


Please disagree if I'm wrong, because as of now I can't really see anything bad with this suggestion.

I'm pretty sure that the current setting wins if there is a tie. Because the ladle default is first Sunday of the month, that would win if there was a tie.

[sinewav]

I'm with owned on this. I guess we could write it down, but generally if there isn't enough votes for a majority, then there is no change.

[Mkay1]

Um.. Liz voted that players will be banned for a ladle for impersonation. Doesn't that mean she won't be able to be thier captain...

[sinewav]

Um.. Liz voted that players will be banned for a ladle for impersonation. Doesn't that mean she won't be able to be thier captain...

Her team voted. We don't now how SHE voted.

I suspected this might come up. I don't think it's right for rules to be retroactive. What she did was troublesome, but we all learned a lesson and we are doing what we can to move forward. I'd rather we didn't go back and argue about it. But if you want to campaign against her playing, then go ahead.

Keep this in mind: All the votes aren't in. It may be that we allow players to be on more than one team, and reject any disciplinary action.

[gawdzilla]

Man, you're dumb 'sometimes' Mkay. If the vote gets accepted like it is, the rule will be implented for NEXT LADLE(S). Meaning what I did in the previous ones doesn't matter.

[sinewav]

I wouldn't say he's dumb. He's posting about a subject that's on a few people's minds for sure. I think there are a number of people who would like to see you miss a Ladle for what you pulled in the last one. I'd go as far to say that most people who voted in favor of disciplinary action is either directly or indirectly agreeing that you should.

Would you voluntarily miss the next Ladle to save face, if the vote for action goes through? I would be a good show a character for you, and it wouldn't go unnoticed.

[dreadlord]

5v5 should create more room for attackers as well

I disagree, if a team only has 5 players then they will rather stay with one defense and two sweepers as with only one sweeper and the usual 3 attackers. I guess less players on a team would mean more defensive gameplay.

Would you voluntarily miss the next Ladle to save face, if the vote for action goes through? I would be a good show a character for you, and it wouldn't go unnoticed.

That's not a bad idea. People would see that you know you made a mistake and that you won't do it anymore (this rule will avoid it anyway but whatever).