The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have elected to vote for weighted votes, largely from remembering the experience that two of the games I voted for I wanted to play sooner than the other two.

I would also suggest that *two* mods (rather than one) keep independent spreadsheets of the votes. That way, they can make sure their numbers match before the order of the games is established.

I volunteer to be one of the two.

I don't mind being the other. It's simple Excel data entry.

I volunteer as well.

We are going to have it here using the poll function we have. I went to college. I can count

No need to make this more complex than it needs to be. If weighting votes wins, we will be able to handle it.

S~V~S wrote:We are going to have it here using the poll function we have. I went to college. I can count

No need to make this more complex than it needs to be. If weighting votes wins, we will be able to handle it.

I don't believe you, I want proof you can count. :P

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Llama clearly votes for the Bull Moose party on that analysis.

I just think the 1912 presidential election is a potent example.

Just like I think the 2000 presidential election is a potent example.

Hiya G

Roxy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Llama clearly votes for the Bull Moose party on that analysis.

I just think the 1912 presidential election is a potent example.

Just like I think the 2000 presidential election is a potent example.

Hiya G [/quote]

It is, actually. That's good point. Ralph Nader split the vote, which wouldn't have happened with weighted voting.

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Llama clearly votes for the Bull Moose party on that analysis.

I just think the 1912 presidential election is a potent example.

Just like I think the 2000 presidential election is a potent example.

Hiya G

It is, actually. That's good point. Ralph Nader split the vote, which wouldn't have happened with weighted voting.

yw

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Llama clearly votes for the Bull Moose party on that analysis.

I just think the 1912 presidential election is a potent example.

Just like I think the 2000 presidential election is a potent example.

Hiya G

It is, actually. That's good point. Ralph Nader split the vote, which wouldn't have happened with weighted voting.[/quote]
Even by first past the post voting-- GWB lost. By any real, reliable measure, he lost. It just would have been assured with alternative voting.

Changed my vote to weighted because it seems like plenty of people are willing to put in the time to make sure it's done properly. Still would prefer if it was built into the site software somehow, but what can you do

Its an interesting.g debate I guess. But.I do.t.really have.a strong opinion one way.or the other. I think the method you use should be based on which one process the.least amount.to street to the mods

That's my vote - whatever provides the least amount of stress for you!

I went with 1=1.

If for the full weighted, it was a full ranking of all games that you wanted to play from want to play the most to want to play the least (and perhaps a don't want to play at all, and including something that if a percentage of people put a game in that category, the host is just asked to either scrap or rework it for a future vote), and votes were private, then I'd go with that. But choosing 4 games to vote for when there are 15+ games isn't difficult, so having your 4 votes weighted doesn't really make a meaningful difference (there'll be an effect on the top and bottom sure, but if you're going to play, you're going to play, and life could get in the way of that at any time).