Unhost Rule discussion
Moderator: LIHL Staff
-
- Treant Protector
- Posts: 973
- Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:30 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
If this is the case @matdas then I don't think this rule would be very effective. Alot of people are tabbed out until game starts or simply doesn't care what happens -> game would just start as more than 1 person wouldn't vote yes.
- matdas
- ENT Staff
- Posts: 2805
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:38 am
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
That doesn't make sense. If you want people to vote for unhost, then they must clearly state yes or no. if they don't say either or, then they don't vote. Are you saying that: 6 votes yes, 1 vote no, one "tabbed out" that the game should be unhosted? If so, then that is completely flawed logic. Since only 7 voted and one said no within those votes, the unhosting cannot accur because only 7 people voted when 8 votes are needed to have a decision. Even if its 7 yes and one "tabbed out" for no vote, then the game cannot be unhosted.
What i am saying: All players must vote. Not sure how complicated that it.
What i am saying: All players must vote. Not sure how complicated that it.
-
- Treant Protector
- Posts: 973
- Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:30 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
I think we are talking about kinda the same but not exactly.
My point being that you can't force people to vote as they are not neccesarily interested in doing so as other things might be more interesting.
If you need all players to vote to get the unhost (even if only 7 is needed) then it probably wont happen. There will in many cases be someone not paying attention or not reading chat or simply just keen on not speaking up. So a guy that doesn't vote should be a "yes" if you want this rule to make real work. If not then I don't see the point in making this rule as I think respect for each other is more effective in this scenario.
My point being that you can't force people to vote as they are not neccesarily interested in doing so as other things might be more interesting.
If you need all players to vote to get the unhost (even if only 7 is needed) then it probably wont happen. There will in many cases be someone not paying attention or not reading chat or simply just keen on not speaking up. So a guy that doesn't vote should be a "yes" if you want this rule to make real work. If not then I don't see the point in making this rule as I think respect for each other is more effective in this scenario.
- matdas
- ENT Staff
- Posts: 2805
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:38 am
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
Or instead of allowing people to unhost, make them play the game, if by chance at the start of the game they decide to draw and rehost a different type, then the draw vote would be consistent with what i am saying...
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
I'm pretty sure a draw of that type can't pass, as observers can't !draw to supersede a player without prompting from rules and with obs 8 votes to draw. without obs, this rule would be stupid. @matdas
- aRt)Y
- Protector of Nature
- Posts: 13142
- Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 174 times
- Contact:
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
Note, poll runs till March 23rd.
- Information, Rules, Guides and everything else you need to know about ENT is on the ENT Wiki.
- Ignorantia juris non excusat • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? • Fallacy of composition
- aRt)Y
- Protector of Nature
- Posts: 13142
- Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 174 times
- Contact:
Re: Unhost Rule discussion
50%,50% legit
- Information, Rules, Guides and everything else you need to know about ENT is on the ENT Wiki.
- Ignorantia juris non excusat • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? • Fallacy of composition
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests