What system should we use in map development?

Shoop camman I like the enthusiasm but if I have trouble reading/understanding your opening post I can't IMAGINE what others are having.

It sounds overly complicated and superfluous.

Democracy through skill works just fine. We have an objective criteria (unlike intellectual ability) that we can establish through empirical data derived from picking order. I've argued before that picking order isn't necessarily representative of skill but it will do it the job for all intended purposes. Then whoever isn't politically interested is removed.

Pertinent players from Europe would then include Sidey, Shoop, Exa, Cmk, Traxx, Chiefhero, CmK, Beeeh, Chaise, possibly Steko. (I might have missed someone).

This system works just fine in a free market. USEast is a different story as it's a realm with a lot of people that NEVER EVER disagree with each other.

Can you explain how your system is supposed to make decisions? How do we settle what to do with stackfarm with your system?

Anyway, its up to Madhatters if he want this/anohter demoratic system to decide mapchanges.

We poll the distinguished players on issues and whatever the majority decides we go with. What's the problem?

I think Shoop's ideas sound atrocious and I don't understand half of what he appears to be saying.

One reason it's retarded is because the demographics of the community don't support it. The people you see posting here are the only ones that are politically active and the only ones that need be considered. The rest are a bunch of kids that are a long for the ride and that agree with whatever the last person that spoke to them told them.

A fringe minority might support Shoop's ideas. Most legends will spit on the idea - to be perfectly honest.


My idea on the other hand gives the best players the opportunity to collectively evaluate ideas with no fuss.

It's much better to have an objective criteria such as skill weed out the masses - that leaves us with much richer input and an objectively fair selection process.

Yeah well noone else seems to agree about that, but why dont you make a new thread about your system and let us continue to develop this system here?

Effloresce wrote:

I think Shoop's ideas sound atrocious and I don't understand half of what he appears to be saying.

One reason it's retarded is because the demographics of the community don't support it. The people you see posting here are the only ones that are politically active and the only ones that need be considered. The rest are a bunch of kids that are a long for the ride and that agree with whatever the last person that spoke to them told them.

A fringe minority might support Shoop's ideas. Most legends will spit on the idea - to be perfectly honest.


My idea on the other hand gives the best players the opportunity to collectively evaluate ideas with no fuss.

It's much better to have an objective criteria such as skill weed out the masses - that leaves us with much richer input and an objectively fair selection process.

This post has to be a troll.

Are you seriously saying that the 10ish people who actively post on the forums will think of every possible improvement to the map? More people contributing to the voting=more ideas=better map, its common sense. You also appear to think that everyone who doesn't post on the forums is some sort of weak minded fool that can be manipulated into voting for or against anything regardless of what they think.

You are the only person I have seen oppose his voting system.

Believe it or not, skill=/=intelligence/knowing what's best. You don't see the best call of duty players making every single decision in terms of a new call of duty do you?

I've said nothing about whether others can contribute ideas or not.

I've only commentated that the best players should be the decisive voters in implementing said ideas.

If you poll the players I mentioned previously you'd find that next to none of them support Shoop's idea.

I think most of them support mine however.

Ok, I splitted the posts regarding this system into a new topic.

Quote :

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this at all. First of all I don't think the ST community is big enough to need representation in a democratic form. Having 10 people voice the ideas of 50-75 people doesn't really seem worth it to me. And the people that would be voicing those opinions are already the people talking on the forums. I just see this as a couple people trying to gain more power in an already disintegrating society.

This is what I said before Shoop removed my posts in this thread to keep his slate clean.

Most of BNET consists of 15 year old kids or younger that don't care about politics. The few people that do care are already posting on the forums. The others do not need representation because they are not interested and they are mostly not capable either. This is simply a ploy by Shoop to factor in the opinions of people that don't care and that don't offer rich input - if any at all. It creates AN INSANE amount of extra work and management for no reason at all.

This system is abysmal. Shoop doesn't care about these other people on bnet being allowed to voice their concerns - he simply wants to start a scenario where whoever spends the most time on bnet campaigning gets the most votes - and where those votes are then in turn controlled by said players.

This system shuts down the concerns of the people it purports to include. If these people don't care enough to post on the forums they're not going to care enough to post on the forums when Shoop falsely says they agree with whatever he says. It opens up a primitive process that NO ONE should want.

And your counter suggestion is that a group of 10 people selected by you should make all decisions?

WTF.

You have removed ALL MY criticism towards you from your thread to keep your slate clean.

This is deplorable behavior. I'm going to report you and I'm going to make sure all parties hear of how you're already going about implementing your "democratic" ideas - namely by tampering with opinion perception.

This is exactly why no one wants any part of your ideas. Fucking hitler.

Wtf? We had 2 different discussions ongoing. What system to use and how to develop the democratic system. I have no problem debating you about what system to use, but its better if we do it in one topic and keep the discussion about the democratic system in another.

As I said, so you think a group of 10 people selected by you should make all the decisions instead?

TristanWOLF wrote:

If you're unwilling to set aside personal opinion from majority opinion and pressure you serve no purpose.

How are we going to determine what the majority opinion is with your system Sidey?

My post at 5:59(2nd last post) had only to do with criticism towards your idea.

You removed it from your thread because you are a fucking hitler.

I'm going to make sure what you're doing gets noted.

Your post is not in any way helping to develop the system, its arguments of why not to use it. Poor ones, contradicting most of the arguments you made with your main account. And you are accusing me of undemocratic methods?

So I ask you, how are we going to determine the majority opinion with your system? And why is it just those 10 players?

Madhatters, some advice now that you are the boss. It's obvious, but don't assume that just because someone says "the overwhelming majority believes this" that the overwhelming majority believes that. And don't assume that because 10 people on the forums say something they represent everyone on bnet. And as effloresce said, most of the people not active on the forums tend to just "agree" with whatever the last person who talked to them said anyways, or are so easily manipulated their opinion seems somewhat silly.
Also don't assume that just because someone doesn't openly post in a thread saying "THIS IS SOME DUMBSHIT" doesnt mean they agree with it.

For instance I haven't responded to shoop's democracy thread. Only like a few people have. This doesn't mean it's got like 100% backing. I just thought it was beyond obvious and not really worth mentioning that it's a dumbshit shoop idea. If it has the word "democracy" or is about democracy and shoop is presenting it, one thing is for sure. It's not really about democracy. It's a scheme shoop derived to get more power. Most everyone experienced with shoopson knows this and so just ignores his trolls. And then there's the few people in the community that can't recognize a bad idea even if it had aids and bit them in the leg, and they say "Ye sounds good". But yeah, while most of the big people in this community have always had a certain craving for power NOONE has had a craving for power like shoop has. And yet shoop has the least power of all, because he's such a rage head. Case and point, didn't he like start deleting someones post in the thread about "democracy" because they disagreed with him? The idea of him being mod anywhere is absolutely ridiculous.

Effloresce's way makes more inherent sense, although is unfairly insulting towards USEast. Mostly the mapmaker is just supposed to weigh the arguments of new ideas and in his own mind apply weights to some people's opinions more than others, while understanding that public sentiment as a whole does matter if people are going to accept a new map.

And then sooner or later you will either cave completely to one party, make most of the world hate you and make a shitty map.
Or not cave and everyone will hate you and the map might be ok.
GL brAH

Lol drew, I may be gullible, but we DO need a new system for unanimous decisions. If Shoop can put this together and it works (no one will use it if it doesn't), then why not?

Drew, being social means that you act in favour of a community and not in favour of your on needs as long as your own needs are met. Madhatters just does the perfect correct thing: he tries out everything people want as long as he thinks its a good idea.

The new system just gets us rid of never-ending discussions and allows faster votes. Sounds attractive..

prodigy
drew is just doing everything he can to sabotage my reputation. His criticism has nothing to do with what I wrote, NOTHING. But it wouldnt suprise me if drew opposed democracy as an idea. Its easy when you have power to neglect others. He wants the power to stay in the hands of a few, and he will do everything he can to make it so. Manipulate people to fight is his most common weapon.

Anyway, its obvious for any intelligent person who reads Sideys post that his system wont work.

He suggest that

Quote :

We poll the distinguished players on issues and whatever the majority decides we go with. What's the problem?

but fail to give an answer to who the distinguished players are and what motivates having just them on this council.

This sounds good in theory but have no chance whatsoever to work in practice. The alternatives are dictature or democracy. I vote democracy beacause it will give the best decisions in the long run and will reward good arguments instead of bribes and threats.