[CaptainSarathai]

Grats Kroxi. A tough break for me - I was on the opposite of your luck, always taking the second turn and, in the one battle that I was poorest at (Blood and Glory) getting stuck in against you. I'd already beaten the Beasts before, too. I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER! Ah well, gratz on the victory sir, it was a scary, scary army list you had there.

I do think that Poll-voting would be a good one for this. Give everyone 1 vote, and there's nothing to worry about. Sure, they can vote for themselves, but it's 1 vote, and the opponent was given a fair chance to vote for himself too. Otherwise yeah, this is traditional VW formatting isn't it? I think it works just fine. As far as ideas for the next one? Not sure - I think running them the same way would work just fine, with the only change being the polls instead of bolded votes.

 

[kroxigor01]

I think poll voting is a bad idea. People should be spending at least 10 minutes thinking about the lists, map, tactics etc to make a serious vote. Writing a reply is a small fraction of the time it takes to make a vote.

I also think the discussions are the most interesting part of the votewar and poll voting would be a step away from that.

 

[NecroNid]

I agree with you Kroxigor. The main problem seemed to be getting more votes. Having a poll would get more votes I think. It comes down to quality vs. quantity. If you want good, well-thought out votes there will be fewer of them. That is why I think that having the participants vote in all the other matches would be a good idea. Even just an eight person votewar would have at least six votes per match that way.

 

[kroxigor01]

Yes, list submiters should have to vote.

But I think posting abstain or draw and giving a few sentence reasoning on why you can't pick a winner counts as voting.

 

[King Ulrik Flamebeard]

Thanks for the ideas guys. It is great to have the support and suggestions for you all.

I will admit that I am not a fan of poll voting. The idea of vote wars is that you are meant to support your reasons why, rather than just vote. So yes, we would have more votes with the poll voting, but it would mean a reduction in the actual reasons why. Something which I feel makes a vote war interesting. I would suggest allowing the owners of the armies to post in their thread, but not to vote in their own - obviously. But rather to defend their actions and explain choices, something I know some of you wished to do this time around.

As to enforcing all who take part to vote, that is kind of fine. But how do you suggest it is done? Especially if someone does poll voting, unless the votes are made public then you'll never know if they have or not. And telling them at the start is all well and good, but we can't force people to vote each time and what if they are stopped by real life situations? Are they penalised until they vote? Just some considerations to think of.


Kuffy

 

[NecroNid]

I don't really like the poll voting option either. I greatly enjoy reading everyone's reasoning and thought processes behind their votes. As for a way to get participants to vote in other matches, maybe a 1 vote penalty in their own match if they do not vote. If real life issues interfere, a quick PM to the TO explaining the situation could exempt someone from a round without taking much effort.

As far as people posting in their own threads I think there is a fine line for that. If they need to explain something that someone has incorrectly posted or some information that someone may have missed when voting I agree with that. I think it goes too far when they try to influence the voting by strong-arming voters with things like, "My list has to win because.." or "I would not handle that fight on Turn 3 like you wrote that I would." I think that after the initial tactics and deployment are written, the combatants should be limited to commenting on errors and factual information and not the subjectivity of the battle. I don't know if I am explaining myself very well here.

 

[Non Marine Player]

I think I understand, you, as the submitter of a list, would be able to comment on how you would deal with X had you not explained it in your tactics, which is a good idea, you'd need someone to enforce restrictions on replies though. That and there's a limit on words in tactics to make us concise with our plan, giving us extra opportunities to explain ourselves kind've moots the point of having the word cap there to begin with.

Otherwise, I agree with what's been said, although I think that you could have Poll voting, as long as you also posted your decision making process.

 

[Polaria]

Well, if you look back to how it went this time we had a lot of votes with nothing else except the name of the army in the post so how is that any different from poll vote?

 

[Non Marine Player]

The man has a point, a good point...

 

[kroxigor01]

Well in my opinion that shouldn't be acceptable. I don't believe that someone has really analysed the match if they can't have at least 2 sentences of justification run off their fingers.