Absinthe
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 4,062
Look, I've seen the way you guys are "simply" and "reasonably" producing results with that method. It's completely ridiculous because it's all predicated on Fish votes going over and then suddenly no longer going over which would induce bull votes to go over and no longer go over and then archer votes go over and no longer go over in order to produce your final results. No take-backs on resolution, ffs. Maybe you're not resolving votes sequentially but as a series of super-positions, but this is all still fucking dumb resulting in a multitude of end-states from a single vote-count, which means no, you do not get to pretend your method is a sane or intuitive method of resolving vote-counts. The only thing your vote resolution method seems to specialize in is creating end-states that are not resolveable, like now. So I'm going to go out on a wild limb and say that maybe, just maybe, your idea is just fucking awful and we're not going to do it.
So again, we're sticking with just eliminating the lowest vote options and flopping their votes accordingly when resolving ranked preference votes, instead of your weird shit.
Which brings us back to Archer beating Bull, 9 votes to 7.
So again, we're sticking with just eliminating the lowest vote options and flopping their votes accordingly when resolving ranked preference votes, instead of your weird shit.
Which brings us back to Archer beating Bull, 9 votes to 7.
Last edited: