View Poll Results: Change the current voting system?

12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 66.67%
  • No

    4 33.33%
Page 2 of 2 « First 12
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    кιηg_ƒσяєνєя +PDatta+'s Avatar

    +PDatta+ is offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    ahmedabad, India
    Damn !! so much of work :(

    Awards Showcase

    Re: 3-2-1 Point system

    AH!!! a superb idea !!!
    I agree... ^_^

    but this sure will set cali's arse on fire...

  2. #22
    ロロノア・ゾロ Caliburn's Avatar

    Caliburn is offline
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    This user is taking back his
    status by force! But would
    also like to note that Sara
    has his heart! It's in a jar
    of marshmallows.

    Awards Showcase

    Re: 3-2-1 Point system


    For starters it's unpractical as currently that would mean everyone should post his top three in a post, which makes voting already quite untrustworthy. Once voted in a poll it's done, but you can still start messing around with your posts. You can't make a poll so that you can only vote 3 times and even if it would, then it's not going to say who you voted first, second and third.

    Secondly way too much work. I already need to IP check all the people who voted for the top 3-5, depending on the results. Now I also need to start checking all the posts and start calculating everything? I'm not going even to consider something like that.

    But on top of it all you propose this to have a clear top 3, then there is no reason to use this is when that's not the case as there is no proven correlation that you would achieve that result using this system. In fact I would say the opposite. It could be vey well that absolutely nothing changes, outside making things unpractical, however if you think about it, it could even have the opposite result, namely that now we get 6 or 7 people all in the top three. I mean if you can only vote once, you can only vote once, but if you can vote three times, then the chance votes gets spread over different players increases significantly, meaning the chance you get more draws increases too and what's the point in that?

    So the final result would be then that not only would it be unpractical and time-consuming, the result you aim for is very likely to not be obtained and potentially might even cause the opposite effect. When something gives no benefits and only disadvantages, the answer is simple: no.
    Last edited by Caliburn; 11-11-2012 at 09:20 AM.

Page 2 of 2 « First 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts