Long term health of mafiascum

[Cheery Dog]

YOu just need more typoes. VOTE: works just as well! I assume on the coding front anyway, I know it does for making /UNVOTE: appear.

[Zachrulez]

Zach, do you know something about this that we don't?

Chamber made reference to enforcing the use of vote tags over bold sitewide in order to work with also mandating an automated vote count system that I'm assuming would only read vote tags and not bold. If we're mandating automated vote counting and enforcing vote tags only so that it works, it stands to reason that as a mod I will no longer have the discretion to count votes any other way because the site is deciding that only vote tags count as votes and that all voting is automated.

That is how I am interpreting it anyway.

[N]

I think you're jumping ahead and making some large assumptions.

[LlamaFluff]

If your objection is as a moderator, it is baseless. For a player, at least you are talking about your long-ingrained habits. As a moderator, you are objecting to a white background because to the moderator that is the sole difference.

I think the bigger objection is the amount of site wide fake voting (intentional and unintentional) that is going to occur if it gets implemented as required for mods to use instead of optional. Probably some accidental "that was really supposed to be a vote" scenarios near deadlines too. That is what I am not looking forward more if it happens and is probably the biggest objection of both players and mods.

Either way it likely ends in a situation where its mandatory and there is a long time situation of it being an annoyance to old players who don't use vote tags (I don't think I have EVER used them) and mods who have to deal with both intentional and unintentional fake votes. Or it is a situation where some mods choose to use them and it takes longer for an adaptation to occur, but the magnitude isn't as extreme.

If its not required there really is no qualm to be had. Maybe the wording from chamber was required as in "required to use automated vote counter"

[PokerFace]

This should really go in site-ideas mafBlack thread but which browser do you use?

I use latest version of chrome. How do I do it? Feel free to PM if you feel this topic diverts too much from main topic in this thread

[Zachrulez]

If your objection is as a moderator, it is baseless. For a player, at least you are talking about your long-ingrained habits. As a moderator, you are objecting to a white background because to the moderator that is the sole difference.

I think the bigger objection is the amount of site wide fake voting (intentional and unintentional) that is going to occur if it gets implemented as required for mods to use instead of optional. Probably some accidental "that was really supposed to be a vote" scenarios near deadlines too. That is what I am not looking forward more if it happens and is probably the biggest objection of both players and mods.

Either way it likely ends in a situation where its mandatory and there is a long time situation of it being an annoyance to old players who don't use vote tags (I don't think I have EVER used them) and mods who have to deal with both intentional and unintentional fake votes. Or it is a situation where some mods choose to use them and it takes longer for an adaptation to occur, but the magnitude isn't as extreme.

If its not required there really is no qualm to be had. Maybe the wording from chamber was required as in "required to use automated vote counter"

The fake voting is actually my biggest concern. My moderator policy is that I determine voter intent and what I'm worried about is site wide implementation of automated voting and enforcement of the vote tags superseding my own rule set. As a mod I am even willing to go as far as to edit bold votes to vote tags to make them count on the basis of voter intent but I am worried that the idea is to take the discretion away in favor of automation deciding what a vote is.

[Majiffy]

If we're mandating automated vote counting and enforcing vote tags only so that it works, it stands to reason that as a mod I will no longer have the discretion to count votes any other way because the site is deciding that only vote tags count as votes and that all voting is automated.

you have no idea what a site-wide implementation of automatic vote counts in threads looks like.

[Konowa]

How is this different from the whole "I didn't unvote, nananana" fake shenanigans?

[Majiffy]

Because who actually unvotes except in LYLO anymore?

[Zachrulez]

From what Chamber has said, that is the impression I have gotten about how it will work.

[Zachrulez]

How is this different from the whole "I didn't unvote, nananana" fake shenanigans?

I don't require unvoting so that type of fake voting can't happen in my games?

[Majiffy]

From what Chamber has said, that is the impression I have gotten about how it will work.

Except your impression takes a lot of wild assumptions that I have never seen in an automated vote counter, ever.

Which brings me back to my "you have no idea what an automated vote counter looks like" statement. That you continue to prove with every post.

Why don't you go ahead and run me by what you think this evil automated fascist vote counter machine cyborg AI doomsday machine would look like and how it would operate.

[Zachrulez]

So if someone votes in bold will I be able to count that as a vote, yes or no?

[PokerFace]

I can see what Zach is getting at, I am very used to

Vote: PokerFace

myself. But considering the benefits, I would be fine with changing and enforcing VOTE: PokerFace just don't expect me to remember to follow this rule every time immediately. I imagine getting everyone to adopt this rule when it occurs is going to be difficult and I guarantee you I am gonna forget and end up accidently breaking it and using my old habits.

The fact people not used to the tool will forget to use it, may lead to some players utilizing trick voting. Players use old voting way to trick veterans into thinking X got voted when the auto counter did not catch it. Should scenarios like this arise the mod should be able to edit the results of the auto counter to prohibit bull shit trickery.

Vote: Bob

followed by scum scum quick hammer VOTE: Bob
Townie bullshit trick voter says Ha VOTE: Obv Scum

Shit like that should not be allowed^

So I am fine with using an auto counter but mod should be able to control and edit counter should unexpected issues arise

[N]

So if someone votes in bold will I be able to count that as a vote, yes or no?

Nobody knows yet; you need to calm down until you have all the facts.

[PokerFace]

From what Chamber has said, that is the impression I have gotten about how it will work.

Except your impression takes a lot of wild assumptions that I have never seen in an automated vote counter, ever.

Which brings me back to my "you have no idea what an automated vote counter looks like" statement. That you continue to prove with every post.

Why don't you go ahead and run me by what you think this evil automated fascist vote counter machine cyborg AI doomsday machine would look like and how it would operate.

The IRC site xyl made a long time back and I use has automated vote counting. Some people do try to exploit and do quick voting or trick voting to lure out scum in those games. And they do it in ways similar to the one i described in my last post. Use of a vote counter to your advantage takes the scum hunting out of finding scum and has a software do it for you. And thats wrong

Me and Zach are on the same page even though we simul post and I type slow

Though neither of us does know how chamber will implement his counter so I state the idea of allowing mod to edit auto counter results as a good suggestion to avoid this stuff from happening

[Espeonage]

I generally adopt in my ruleset that I won't count votes unless there is an unvote because it creates much more scope for fake plays, while I don't use the vote tags myself it is something I have no issue with changing as it adds even another layer to fake plays.

[Zachrulez]

From what Chamber has said, that is the impression I have gotten about how it will work.

Except your impression takes a lot of wild assumptions that I have never seen in an automated vote counter, ever.

Which brings me back to my "you have no idea what an automated vote counter looks like" statement. That you continue to prove with every post.

Why don't you go ahead and run me by what you think this evil automated fascist vote counter machine cyborg AI doomsday machine would look like and how it would operate.

The IRC site xyl made a long time back and I use has automated vote counting. Some people do try to exploit and do quick voting or trick voting to lure out scum in those games. And they do it in ways similar to the one i described in my last post. Use of a vote counter to your advantage takes the scum hunting out of finding scum and has a software do it for you. And thats wrong

Me and Zach are on the same page even though we simul post and I type slow

Though neither of us does know how chamber will implement his counter so I state the idea of allowing mod to edit auto counter results as a good suggestion to avoid this stuff from happening

I still don't think it should be required even with mod discretion, but I would at least be able to live with it if I still have the power to eliminate any possibility of players exploiting the auto vote counter in a way I don't like.

[Majiffy]

So if someone votes in bold will I be able to count that as a vote, yes or no?

You can. You shouldn't, because

rules.

But yes.

AVCs typically send the vote count via PM to the person requesting them. Any votes that don't fit the algorithm are not counted.

If you're a mod that wants to count the bolded, then you'll just have to go through and do

the same things you'd do as a normal mod

; count the votes manually. This changes nothing from the mod's perspective.

If you're a mod that wants to strictly adhere to the rules, then you just post what you receive in PM. This makes the job easier for the mod,

and removes the grey area from things like faux-votes.

So if your issue is faux-voting, you should support the site-wide notion to only count VOTE: tagged votes.

The IRC site xyl made a long time back and I use has automated vote counting. Some people do try to exploit and do quick voting or trick voting to lure out scum in those games. And they do it in ways similar to the one i described in my last post. Use of a vote counter to your advantage takes the scum hunting out of finding scum and has a software do it for you. And thats wrong

Me and Zach are on the same page even though we simul post and I type slow

Though neither of us does know how chamber will implement his counter so I state the idea of allowing mod to edit auto counter results as a good suggestion to avoid this stuff from happening

There's a few things here so I'll have to break it down.

1) This is a forum and not a chat. So by that virtue alone, those types of quickhammers (or faux-votes leading to them) really shouldn't be as much of an issue.

2) This comes down to mod discretion. If the rules state only votes posted as VOTE: count, and the bolded don't, then the players should be acutely aware of that.

Read the OP.

3) If you're going to go back and retroactively change all

votes to VOTE: , then that should be represented in the OP. Again, this removes all of that grey area about faux-voting.


Basically, all the perceived issues regarding this lie solely on players trying to bend or break rules in a game-ethics way.

I would consider these a modkillable offence.

Simple. Won't happen then. It's simply against the spirit of the game to try to use out-of-game mechanics to win. Just like disallowed private communications, posting screenshots, etc.

[Zachrulez]

Is it really insane to say that an auto vote counter should be able to count bold and vote tag votes as votes? (With an option to have it count either form or both?)

Also in the past I have counted non bold votes (While advising the player to vote according to my rules next time.) and even a vote for one of the heads of a hydra as a vote for the hydra. I don't like strict vote counting rules. I prefer having more flexibility with it and I really don't want a game to come down to some stupid mind game of whether something actually was a vote or not, so if it could be reasonably interpreted as a vote, it is.

[Majiffy]

I'm not a coder so I can't speak to the issues regarding bold or unbolded votes.

But I seriously fail to see the issue with using the regular vote tags.

[Zachrulez]

If they had existed from the beginning of time there wouldn't be one, but there's a whole load of users who came to the site and learned how to vote differently.

[Cheery Dog]

##Vote: people

[Majiffy]

If they had existed from the beginning of time there wouldn't be one, but there's a whole load of users who came to the site and learned how to vote differently.

Life is so hard sometimes.

[tn5421]

According to Thesp, most of the processing time his votecounter uses is his ReGeX (non-technical: It searches for patterns, in this case

Vote:

) expressions looking for votes using bold tags.

The thing is, offsite you HAVE to use bold tags, since nobody else really likes to do custom bbcode.