Moderator: Clan Directors
Nicky15 wrote:In this apparent dictatorship, the one thing in the entire format we insisted on were that clans were a member of a democratic group, that got to vote on issues that involved them. Us being a dictatorship kind of contradicts our want for democracy.
Now as i said before we will address this issue if it ever arises. There is currently one clan that has opted out of CDF that is true, and there are two very new clans that haven't quite yet met the requirements to be a member. If any of these three clans want to play, then we will of course consider it. More than likely we would ask for the opinion of the members of CDF.
jetsetwilly wrote:Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
jetsetwilly wrote:Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
friendly1 wrote:jetsetwilly wrote:Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
It all needs to be voted on. And yes that will make it a longer and more difficult process, but it should make future events easier, and likely help the clan league out as well when it gets annexed as an official Conquer Club event.
Ive been wondering why polls have not been showing up in the CDF yet?
IcePack wrote:So I don't mind it being listed as "must be a member of CDF".
But beneath it, can you pretty please tell us what those requirements actually are?
Thanks!
Right getting back on track, do people want a vote on a limited trench inclusion?
IcePack wrote:This makes the vote more complicated, but if possible I would favor a vote where you dont just pick one option, but prioritize all of them.
Such as:
1st Pick = 4 Pts
2nd Pick = 3 pts
3rd pick = 2 pts
4th pick = 1 pt
This way, you can total all clans 4 picks prioritization. That way I can say "i pick option 1, but if i had to choose something else it would be Y, and then X, and then Z."
It would really show the preferances of the clans, instead of limiting to your top option.
jetsetwilly wrote:4. Alternative system
Clans 1-8 get a bye in Rounds 1 and 2 and join from Round 3
Clans 9-16 get a bye in Round 2 and join in Round 2
There are 2 similar alternatives within option 4 but for the purposes of the initial discussion we propose to keep them as a single option. If this option proves to be the winner then we could determine which of the 2 to go for.
Option 4a uses a random method of pairing the clans. 4b uses a bracket system.
4a:
R1: Clans ranked 17-24 are randomly paired with the clans ranked 25-32
R2: Clans ranked 9-16 are randomly paired with the winners from R1
R3 Clans ranked 1-8 clans are randomly paired with the winers from R2
QF: Remainng clans ranked 1-4 are randomly paired with those ranked 4-8
SF: Remaining clans ranked 1-2 are randomly paried with those ranked 3-4
4b:
R1: Clans ranked 17-24 are paired with the clans ranked 25-32 using the system 17v32; 18v31 ... 24v25
R2: Clans ranked 9-16 are paired with the 8 winners from R1. 9v(24v25); 10v(23v26) ... 16v(17v32)
R3 Clans ranked 1-8 clans are paired with the winners from R2. 1-8. 1v[16v(17v32)]; 2v[15v(18v31)] ... 8v[9v(24v25)]
QF: Remaining 8 clans - draw system tbc.
SF: Remaining 4 clans - draw system tbc
jetsetwilly wrote:Given the importance of the decision here we will need to consider the best method of making sure it's a fair outcome. It's highly unlikely to be a straight single vote. If there are 4 options, and 3 involved some level of random then that vote could be split 3 ways. We'll get that sorted out as quickly as we can with a view to getting the vote going early this week.
josko.ri wrote:IcePack wrote:This makes the vote more complicated, but if possible I would favor a vote where you dont just pick one option, but prioritize all of them.
Such as:
1st Pick = 4 Pts
2nd Pick = 3 pts
3rd pick = 2 pts
4th pick = 1 pt
This way, you can total all clans 4 picks prioritization. That way I can say "i pick option 1, but if i had to choose something else it would be Y, and then X, and then Z."
It would really show the preferances of the clans, instead of limiting to your top option.
This is bad idea. For example if you favor just one option, and 2 options are above other 2 in voting, then you will put #1 for option you favorise, and #4 to its the most strongest opposition option, even if you think that the most strongest opposition option is second the best. This suggestion allows more manipulation with voting.
Keep it simple, one clan put one vote for option they like the most. If no option gets more than 50% votes in first voting round, then we can make new voting round with 2 the most strongest option, while other 2 being eliminated.
IcePack wrote:josko.ri wrote:IcePack wrote:This makes the vote more complicated, but if possible I would favor a vote where you dont just pick one option, but prioritize all of them.
Such as:
1st Pick = 4 Pts
2nd Pick = 3 pts
3rd pick = 2 pts
4th pick = 1 pt
This way, you can total all clans 4 picks prioritization. That way I can say "i pick option 1, but if i had to choose something else it would be Y, and then X, and then Z."
It would really show the preferances of the clans, instead of limiting to your top option.
This is bad idea. For example if you favor just one option, and 2 options are above other 2 in voting, then you will put #1 for option you favorise, and #4 to its the most strongest opposition option, even if you think that the most strongest opposition option is second the best. This suggestion allows more manipulation with voting.
Keep it simple, one clan put one vote for option they like the most. If no option gets more than 50% votes in first voting round, then we can make new voting round with 2 the most strongest option, while other 2 being eliminated.
This accomplishes everything in 1 vote. You already said if your vote method doesn't produce a winner you'd need another vote. Mine is simpler
IcePack wrote:I guess the CD's will decide. I'm not going to debate another 30 pages on things again. Since they want everything a vote, why not vote on the vote.
josko.ri wrote:IcePack wrote:I guess the CD's will decide. I'm not going to debate another 30 pages on things again. Since they want everything a vote, why not vote on the vote.
If there will be vote on a vote then i would propose third option, similar like your but points do not go 4,3,2,1 but rather go exponential 8,4,2,1. First choice of anyone need to have more weight than 4 Points compared to 3 points which is almost no difference.
Also, one question for qwert for proposal 4a, as I am not sure if I understand his idea in total: Which is time of making draw for each round in your idea? Is it the whole draw for the whole tournament made at the beginning of the tournament (draw is made just once during the tournament), or draw for every round will be done before start of the round according to current rank at the date of every draw (draw is made before every round = 5 times during the tournament)?
IcePack wrote:josko.ri wrote:IcePack wrote:I guess the CD's will decide. I'm not going to debate another 30 pages on things again. Since they want everything a vote, why not vote on the vote.
If there will be vote on a vote then i would propose third option, similar like your but points do not go 4,3,2,1 but rather go exponential 8,4,2,1. First choice of anyone need to have more weight than 4 Points compared to 3 points which is almost no difference.
thats fine with me. Did we just agree to something?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users