In Progress [LP CYOA] Tower

[Nevill]

With all due respect, I disagree with the runoff method you seem to use.

...and the script won't do anything for counting the votes - and missing them as we've seen it happen - unless there is at least some standard.

 

[Baltika9]

After the first wave of the Bull Revolution, we find ourselves in an interesting position.

==Votes after conditionals==

=Conditionals support Bull and Fish=

Bull - 7
Fish - 8

=Conditionals support Archer and Fish=

Archer - 6
Fish - 8

==Raw votes==

Lion - 2
Bull - 5
Fish - 6
Archer - 3
Twins - 2
Goat - 1
Ram - 1

Poll

Spoiler

ERYFKRAD - Lion>Bull
CappenVarra - Lion

Lambchop19 - Bull>Fish
Baltika9 - Bull>Fish
Zerofall - Bull
Kz3r0 - Bull
Kipeci- Bull>Fish

Nevill - Fish
Azira - Fish>Archer>Virgin>Scorpion
Esquilax - Fish
Grimgravy - Fish>Archer
hello friend - Fish>Twins>Virgin>Archer
ItsChon - Fish

Absinthe - Archer>Twins
Tigranes - Archer>Fish
asxetos - Archer

baud - Twins>Virgin
Smashing Axe - Twins>Archer>Lion>Ram

oscar - Goat>Water-Bearer>Bull>Ram

Egosphere - Ram>Archer

Life of the Party - Virgin>Archer>Twins>Fish

===

Support the Bull Revolution, comrades!

We're talking ginormous arrays of glorious deathtraps and misdirections while we troll the ever-loving shit out of our adversaries.

A bit bold of you to assume how everyone will develop the character, innit?

 

[Kz3r0]

Who needs fancy-shmancy astrology

 

[Kz3r0]

while we troll the ever-loving shit out of our adversaries.

Didn’t we already do that with Jing?

 

[Nevill]

Pardonne-moi.

Present company excluded, of course.

 

[Absinthe]

With all due respect, I disagree with the runoff method you seem to use.

What runoff method do you recommend? I'm used to eliminating options from the bottom up. Are you doing some kind of STAR method? Anyway, seems ultimate victor is the same under both methods.

...and the script won't do anything for counting the votes - and missing them as we've seen it happen - unless there is at least some standard.

Script's not done yet. Script's method is to make every instance of the option's name become obvious and clickable to add this to a person's vote. So far I've actually been counting manually.

Support the Bull Revolution, comrades!

Kill the bull, men! Lest you turn the Hunter into the Huntard!

A bit bold of you to assume how everyone will develop the character, innit?

A bit bold of you to recommend that we let our Traps skill go to waste. We haven't done a trapper before. Certainly, I can't guarantee everyone will vote to keep upgrading Traps, but if we already have the skill and we're using it, it's reasonable to assume that we will keep developing it. Of course, the Bull is a bloody waste of Hunter skills (especially Traps) with his -1 dex and terrible int. Whereas the Archer keeps his +1 dex, develops +1 wis (being a perceptive hunter seems important, but that's just me), and adds +2 int (for a +1 int bonus total), making us a rather able trapper.

Didn’t we already do that with Jing?

Jing trolled people with his speech skills and tendency for outrageous stunts. We never had a proper Traps skill. Trapper would be very different.

 

[Kipeci]

We already let Traps go to waste by not going for the Scholar, might as well have some sort of advantage unique to the hunter. Fish or bull, either have a staggering constitution which will be an interesting and uncharted territory for us.

 

[Baltika9]

Anyway, seems ultimate victor is the same under both methods.

Ackshully, Bull ties Fish, Archer beats Bull, Fish beats Archer. Yeah, we need the points-system. On the other hand, this three-way may just make for character creation drama.

A bit bold of you to recommend that we let our Traps skill go to waste.

Of course, the Bull is a bloody waste of Hunter skills (especially Traps) with his -1 dex and terrible int.

I ain't assuming nunthin'. We can still develop our stats and skill points.
Oh no, -1 dexterity wth a total of 5. Our hunting career is over. What a tragedy.

Kill the bull, men! Lest you turn the Hunter into the Huntard!

Now we're getting there!
Glorious Revolutionary Comrade Bull defeats puny trappers!

 

[Nevill]

Oh no, -1 dexterity wth a total of 5. Our hunting career is over. What a tragedy.

I remember that after losing an eye the 'Dex overcompensated to such an extent that we ramped up Jing's perception to an effective 10 (8 base + 2 bonus).

When the 'Dex wants something, it is very simple-minded in its approach. Dare I say... bullheaded?

 

[Absinthe]

Ackshully, Bull ties Fish, Archer beats Bull, Fish beats Archer. Yeah, we need the points-system. On the other hand, this three-way may just make for character creation drama.

Okay, seriously, you need to explain how you're doing ranked preference votes. I'm using basic instant run-off voting (eliminate every option from the lowest votes up and flip their votes to the next eligible option in line). You're doing your own weird method. Are you doing Condorcet method or approval voting or something? Ordinary voting is first-past-the-post and ranked preference votes are typically not a wholesale rejection of first-past-the-post, but a way of automatically adapting your vote within a first-past-the-post counting method. Meaning "I am treating this as a regular poll, but if my option is low enough to be eliminated, flip it over to the next one down the line." I think you're using ranked preference votes as a way of representing an entirely different vote counting system.

I ain't assuming nunthin'. We can still develop our stats and skill points.
Oh no, -1 dexterity wth a total of 5. Our hunting career is over. What a tragedy.

The biggest waste is Traps, which is a dex/int hybrid skill that will suffer for this. The others are just worse off than they would be if we'd picked nothing at all.

Now we're getting there!
Glorious Revolutionary Comrade Bull defeats puny trappers!

Hunters are supposed to kill bulls, you know.

 

[Nevill]

Okay, seriously, you need to explain how you're doing ranked preference votes.
[...]
"This is my first pick, but if my option doesn't make it, flip it over to the next one."

The method he uses to resolve flops is "fixing the contenders that won't flop, resolving the flops, and looking at the results". That was my beef with your runoff method.

The interpretation you quote is correct, but nowhere does it say that the process is incremental.

The ranked voting uses several methods depending on the program options. They should be described in the wiki.

 

[Baltika9]

Okay, seriously, you need to explain how you're doing ranked preference votes.

Simple, and Nevill got it. Bull and Fish are tied, so that's a no-go. Next, Archer beats Bull after all flops are accounted for. This is where the conditionals for the Fish kick in.
Archer gets three of its votes from the Fish, which means those votes go back to the Fish if the Bull voters flop to it. Conditionals are wonderful. I am genuinely in favor of vote reform.

Now we're getting there!
Glorious Revolutionary Comrade Bull defeats puny trappers!

Hunters are supposed to kill bulls, you know.

 

[Absinthe]

I don't use that program. No one does. Let's not bring however that thing does the vote-counting into this. Anyway, since you two use a weird method of flipping votes without ruling out options and it is producing 3 different mutually exclusive results off of one count instead of a single actual winner, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your method should not to be used to determine a winner here. Instead we just eliminate the options with the fewest votes and flip their votes.

 

[Baltika9]

I don't use that program. No one does. Let's not bring however that thing does the vote-counting into this. Anyway, since you two use a weird method of flipping votes without ruling out options and it is producing 3 different mutually exclusive results off of one count instead of a single actual winner, I'm going to go out on a limb and say your method should not to be used to determine a winner here. Instead we just eliminate the options with the fewest votes and flip their votes.

Except that's what conditionals are for. 'If A loses, I want B.' If Bull loses, half of the Bull voters want Fish. This means Fish wins.

 

[Absinthe]

If Bull loses, 3 voters want Fish. If Fish loses, 3 voters want Archer. If Archer loses, 2 votes go to Twins (which is not an option) and ultimately 2 to Fish. You listed 3 different final breakdowns on your post-conditional voting method without a clear winner between them.

Anyway, let me see where your results are headed. I guess it looks like this?

Baltika9/Nevill counting method

Bull 7

Baltika9 Bull>Tiger>Ram>Fish
Kz3ro Bull
Lambchop19 Bull>Fish
Kipeci Bull>Fish
Zerafall Bull
ERYFKRAD Lion=Bull
Oscar Goat > Water-bearer > Bull > Ram​

Archer 6

Absinthe Archer>Twins
Tigranes Archer>Ram>Fish
asxetos Archer
Egosphere Ram>Archer
Life of a Party Virgin>Archer>Twins>Fish
Smashing Axe Twins>Archer>Lion>Ram​

Fish 5

Nevill Fish
Azira Fish>Archer>Virgin>Scorpion
Grimgravy Fish>Archer
Hello Friend Fish>Twins>Virgin>Archer
Esquilax Fish​

Twins 1

Baud Twins>Virgin​

Lion 1

CappenVarra Lion​

In that case Fish flops over to Archer with 3 votes and Archer still wins. Final breakdown: 9 Archer votes, 7 Bull votes.

 

[Baltika9]

Dude, the only reason Archer has 9 votes is because the Fish voters flop over to it if Bull is winning. But, if Bull loses, then three Bull voters are flopping to Fish, and Archer loses the three votes it got from the Fish voters. This means Fish is up to 9, and Archer is down to 6.

Our predicament is that, right now, we are in a three-way tie and we need tie-breakers.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled shitposting.

=====

Support the Glorious Revolutionary Comrade Bull!

 

[Absinthe]

Dude, the only reason Archer has 9 votes is because the Fish voters flop over to it if Bull is winning. But, if Bull loses, then three Bull voters are flopping to Fish, and Archer loses the three votes it got from the Fish voters. This means Fish is up to 9, and Archer is down to 6.

Our predicament is that, right now, we are in a three-way tie and we need tie-breakers.

What you have is not a tie. It's a paradox of 3 different results, which you are ultimately declaring to be a tie. Look, Fish is lowest so you flop Fish's votes to the highest remaining option. The only way your 3 scenarios work is if you say "After fish votes flop over to archer, bull votes get to flop to fish (which already flopped to make this scenario in the first place), making fish votes un-flop from Archer, at which point archer flops to fish beneath bull, making bull un-flop from fish....." Bull only loses once Fish's votes (as the lowest vote) flop over. The fact that Bull's votes would only then flop to fish should not be used to make Fish reverse-viable by un-flopping Fish votes after Fish votes already flopped, where suddenly now Archer votes should flop which in turn un-flops the Bull creating a retarded dead heat between Bull and Fish with more weird flopping voodoo possible. All we'd need is one more guy voting Archer>Bull>Fish and we have a fully cyclical paradox. I mean wtf is this counting method? No. If an option's votes are already flopping over, you don't count flops back to it.

Safe to say that you two's preferred vote counting method is not preferred by the rest of us.

 

[Life of the Party]

 

[Tigranes]

Uhh, yeah. Baltika9 one of the things is that a vote counting system should be relatively intuitive for all voters. Even if a system is theoretically the 'best', it doesn't function if it's too hard for everyone to get. A simple run-off system is intuitive. This thing isn't. I'm not sure the last page or so has been a net benefit for everyone in terms of getting everyone on the same page and making things clear.

I'm not a fan of Bull. When we voted for Hunter, the people who voted Hunter mostly wanted a nature-attuned, wise fellow with associations of bows and traps. Those who voted against Hunter wanted someone who is fairly smart in some way, academic or otherwise. It seems to me that a lot of the Bull voting is a "ooh, shinies" distraction that runs against all of that.

If we don't like Archer for being too all-rounded, then there's 80 other options, including Fish. 3 INT is going to close off a LOT of options going forward.

Archer > Fish, or whatever beats Bull, using whatever weird voting counting that whoever is doing now

 

[Absinthe]

I'd argue their system obviously isn't best, not simply from a perspective of being intuitive (which it isn't), but also because it induces logical paradoxes in vote resolution (which is cancer). I feel like the only point in arguing for it is that you really want to keep votes open longer by wasting time.

Under Instant Runoff Voting, Archer beats Bull, 9 votes to 7.

Voting tallies

Initial tally:

Goat 1

Oscar Goat > Water-bearer > Bull > Ram​

Bull 6

Baltika9 Bull>Tiger>Ram>Fish
Kz3ro Bull
Lambchop19 Bull>Fish
Kipeci Bull>Fish
Zerafall Bull
ERYFKRAD Lion=Bull​

Ram 1

Egosphere Ram>Archer​

Archer 3

Absinthe Archer>Twins
Tigranes Archer>Ram>Fish
asxetos Archer​

Fish 5

Nevill Fish
Azira Fish>Archer>Virgin>Scorpion
Grimgravy Fish>Archer
Hello Friend Fish>Twins>Virgin>Archer
Esquilax Fish​

Twins 2

Baud Twins>Virgin
Smashing Axe Twins>Archer>Lion>Ram​

Lion 1

CappenVarra Lion​

Virgin 1

Life of a Party Virgin>Archer>Twins>Fish​

1st Runoff: (Goat, Ram, Lion, and Virgin eliminated)

Bull 7

Baltika9 Bull>Tiger>Ram>Fish
Kz3ro Bull
Lambchop19 Bull>Fish
Kipeci Bull>Fish
Zerafall Bull
ERYFKRAD Lion=Bull
Oscar Goat > Water-bearer > Bull > Ram​

Archer 5

Absinthe Archer>Twins
Tigranes Archer>Ram>Fish
asxetos Archer
Egosphere Ram>Archer
Life of a Party Virgin>Archer>Twins>Fish​

Fish 5

Nevill Fish
Azira Fish>Archer>Virgin>Scorpion
Grimgravy Fish>Archer
Hello Friend Fish>Twins>Virgin>Archer
Esquilax Fish​

Twins 2

Baud Twins>Virgin
Smashing Axe Twins>Archer>Lion>Ram​

2nd Runoff: (Twins eliminated)

Bull 7

Baltika9 Bull>Tiger>Ram>Fish
Kz3ro Bull
Lambchop19 Bull>Fish
Kipeci Bull>Fish
Zerafall Bull
ERYFKRAD Lion=Bull
Oscar Goat > Water-bearer > Bull > Ram​

Archer 6

Absinthe Archer>Twins
Tigranes Archer>Ram>Fish
asxetos Archer
Egosphere Ram>Archer
Life of a Party Virgin>Archer>Twins>Fish
Smashing Axe Twins>Archer>Lion>Ram​

Fish 5

Nevill Fish
Azira Fish>Archer>Virgin>Scorpion
Grimgravy Fish>Archer
Hello Friend Fish>Twins>Virgin>Archer
Esquilax Fish​

3rd Runoff: (Fish eliminated)

Bull 7

Baltika9 Bull>Tiger>Ram>Fish
Kz3ro Bull
Lambchop19 Bull>Fish
Kipeci Bull>Fish
Zerafall Bull
ERYFKRAD Lion=Bull
Oscar Goat > Water-bearer > Bull > Ram​

Archer 9

Absinthe Archer>Twins
Tigranes Archer>Ram>Fish
asxetos Archer
Egosphere Ram>Archer
Life of a Party Virgin>Archer>Twins>Fish
Smashing Axe Twins>Archer>Lion>Ram
Azira Fish>Archer>Virgin>Scorpion
Grimgravy Fish>Archer
Hello Friend Fish>Twins>Virgin>Archer​

Final tally:

Bull 7
Archer 9​

 

[hello friend]

Baltika9 so what you're saying is that if we count the votes in a certain way, Fish wins with Archer in second place.

I'm fine with that.

 

[Absinthe]

Fish doesn't win under Baltika9 and Nevill's method, because at that stage Archer dips below Bull causing Bull>Fish votes to abandon Fish back to Bull. It's fully retarded with multiple layers of votes flopping and then un-flopping. It isn't sane to "resolve" votes that way.

 

[Life of the Party]

Just use points. Here:

3 points: The Archer

2 points: The Fish

1 point: The Bull

 

[Absinthe]

NO. We are not revoting all this shit just because Baltika and Nevill introduced an unintuitive bizarro vote resolution system that specializes in creating unresolveable voting states. We just don't resolve ranked preference votes their way and stick with the normal method of eliminating all the options with the lowest votes sequentially, flopping their votes accordingly until two options are left.

 

[Nevill]

There is no flopping and unflopping. The logic is simple and follows from a single principle. Which you altered from (quoted by me):

"This is my first pick, but if my option doesn't make it, flip it over to the next one."

To this:

Meaning "I am treating this as a regular poll, but if my option is low enough to be eliminated, flip it over to the next one down the line."

I stand by the original principle.

Can Fish make it? If Bull flops, then yes. Since Fish can make it, it doesn't flop.
Can Archer make it? If Fish flops, then yes. Since Archer can make it, it doesn't flop.
Can Bull make it? No. Then Bull flops.

Simple.

That you start throwing words like retarded and edit your arguments afterwards does not really make you more right.

This discussion is going in circles. It is tiring and not interesting. And it is getting more autistic by the second.