Re: bidding -- Rules Committee PRIVATE FORUM

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:25:33 09/13/00 Wed
Author: just threw it
Subject: Re: bidding
In reply to: tracee 's message, "Re: bidding" on 08:09:49 09/13/00 Wed

question: how do we know what the ladder wants as a whole? just because we hear a lot of dissenting opinion doesn't mean that the dissenters are the majority ... so how do we know?

if a lot of people who are against the bidding system didn't vote, then how many people who are for the bidding system didn't vote?

if we put an issue back in the voting booth because the people who voted and lost are complaining, does that mean every issue that ever goes into the voting booth can go in over and over and over as long as the losers keep complaining?

if we rectify the unhappiness of the people who don't like the voting system by putting it back in the voting booth, are we creating a lot of unhappiness for the people who do want the bidding system? if that happens, what do we do then? put it back in the voting booth again?

re your question about what harm would it do to put it up for a revote ... if your logic for doing it is to show the people that we are listening, why did you just ignore the voice of the people that voted it in in the first place? i think recommending something like a revote on this issue so soon would pretty much destroy our credibility.

i go to other sites to play now because i care more about playing with my friends than i do about playing for rank. if cases ladder is a place for players to play for rank, then i don't belong here. playing for rank is not a bad thing .. just not my thing. soooo ... what is it? is cases ladder for rank players or is it not? if it's for rank players, the bidding system makes perfect sense. if i want to come to cases and play for rank, then i will come and use the bidding system.

also your logic about only 190 people wanting it doesn't follow ... if sooo many people who don't want it didn't vote, how many people who DO want it didn't vote???

i don't think we should recommend a re-vote on this issue. i don't think we should recommend any particular action at all on this issue ... but i do think we should make sure that the reasons players have given why they don't like it as well as the reasons players have given why they do like it should get on the record in the rules committee. so how do we go about doing that?

justy

> > our function is to do what the ladder wants as a
> whole.
> that is my understanding.
> our ladder community is declining-and i would bet that
> it declines even further.
> we do not have the say as to what we want.
> i'm looking at the lobby,at the forums, and seeing
> that people aren't happy with things.
> do we want to end up with 190 people playing, ie, the
> 190 that voted for it?
> or do we want to attempt to rectify the unhappiness
> with a re-vote?
> this isn't rocket science, or politics, or anything
> that matters in the bigger sense of the word, its a
> game, and if something isn't working, we should try to
> make the 1000 people that didn't vote get into the
> voting booth and voice their opinion.
> no WE can't overturn the vote, but it is OUR
> responsibility as the elected ladder reps to get this
> in for a re-vote so then if it passes again, its good,
> if not, it wasn't.what harm is a re-vote?its not he
> president of the united states or anything and would
> give us credibility that yes, we are listening to what
> people are saying.
> we shouldn't subject what seems to be a large number
> of people to go to a different site to play.
> our mission should be to simplify this and get the
> ones back that have already gone.
> if you yourself are going to others sites, how many
> others are as well?
> anyway,
> it doesn't matter to me.i personally don't like it,
> but i did vote no for it as well, but this isn't about
> me.
> i'll do what i have to do.
> thanks,
> tracee

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]