good idea - no speed or sequence polls are needed
we just need to start suggesting next move before poll is closed
and when next poll is created, these suggestions included
2 Likes
Thatās a good argument in my eyes for not accelerating
1 Like
So can we keep it like that, as I see players who would accelerate, agree to simply start discussing before closing?
I mean Iām afraid we annoy people with more polls for the time being.
And can we fix that speed polls are abolished, and until we get some more consensus and easy way for sequence proposal, we put them aside too?
If no strong objection, that seems to be a almost correct consensus for the time being. Cheers!
2 Likes
just when you will create next poll, say that anyone can do conditional suggestions even before poll closes
And that you will include it in poll after poll.
polls will be normal
Call it conditional or sequence, well there is yet no consensus to put them in the poll.
But maybe itās because it should be better defined indeed being a bit complex. There is already no consensus on the time setting then how to write themā¦
Discussion is still open, just I need a brake I guess
(Note : you did a few times the scribe, I am sure you re be willing to check for that convenience too )
Poll closed
No more speeding poll by a majority.
Only a minority for sequences in the poll, so thatās put aside too . Weāll check that again later if we get some easy way to include them
Ok letās go to the game.
2 Likes
I suggest that we have a second round of voting with only the top two options carrying through.
We have so many options that it seems worthwhile.
2 Likes
I think there should be a second round of voting whenever the winner is below 50%
2 Likes
bugcat and Conrad_Melville both voted for not current winner
If poll restarts with reduced options, there is chance they win
So constitution should not be changed when ongoing poll
It should be only allowed on from next move.
Changing rules of game when people already did their move with current rules is like ignoring them.
1 Like
First I would prefer we talk on the game as on the processing of the poll because we have full liberty to change vote and discussion is still open. Some moves have similar meaning so.
Now I think everyone is right we could arrange a second turn when no majority is met +in that case we have to define which candidates should remain+ and we could wait to do that for next move (not this one).
Instead of an arbitrary number of 2, we could put aside all votes who didnāt get more as 1 vote for example?
1 Like
I think its fun when leader is ahead only by 1 vote. When someone changes their not popular choice in the last moment. This is game, we are not trying to beat AlphaGo.
2 polls every move may become boring.
2 Likes
Well I get that point too. And because itās a democratic game, when opinion diverge we have our tool for that, we can put all this in a ā¦poll 
1 Like
Can the poll be edited to give everyone 2 votes instead of just 1? maybe a majority would pop outā¦
I am not really for it because it would be a bit unfair for players who focuse on one answer only. Besides, I think itās more in the spirit to have to decide yourself for one move.
2 Likes
Thatās what I would propose in a poll, I prefer ask before what you think of it:
Starting from next poll, we could organize a second turn when the winner donāt reach 50 % of the votants.
The second turn will contain all the suggestions who got more as 1 vote.
There shouldnāt be a third turn. In case of equality the winner will be the first made suggestion in the thread.
1 Like
I donāt object to weight factors, 2nd votes or multiple rounds, but it would add complication which is not really neccessary IMO.
I think the process is fine as it is. After all, it is a democratic game. Democracy is not expected to give a perfect solution all the time. But a solution that gains the most support after a fair debate, is probably not the worst either.
I voted for the currently 2nd most popular proposal, but I donāt mind if the currently most popular proposal wins.
I assume that if youād analyze this position with AI, it may also give several move candidates with only small evaluation differences between them. Choosing one over another may be more a matter of style than anything else.
Also, I approach this more as a rengo game, where your team mates will often play something that is not your first choice. You just have to deal with that and try to make the best of the moves that were actually played.
2 Likes
I really think if there is a second turn, we should give everyone 2 votes (or even more). This way, at least someoneās second choice can still be the winner and please the majority.
Donāt know if polling can be turned into cumulative voting, where one option can be voted more than one time with multiple ballots.
instead of Go, it would be quantum go, where no one needs to be sure about their choice
if 2nd poll will contain everything that got at least 1 vote, it will make no difference
if 2nd poll will contain everything that got at least 2 votes, people who voted for not popular ones may give all their votes to not winner of 1st poll and definition of popularity changes - what usually wins with one poll, may start to usually lose - why we need this?
less choices will lead to frequent draw
it shouldnāt matter who first made suggestion - people of specific time zone will win more often
using random generator after second poll will lead to quantum go
using current rule of draw will lead to 3rd poll
@stone.defender now, we have two options with the same amount of votes, what do you suggest we do now?
current law is to make 2nd poll with only 2 choices, but that rarely happens
win by less than 50% happens often - if law changes, there will be a lot of polls