Man, I am 100% with you on disliking the ship being used as a reason to delay elfcation... but I don't think it's going to be a deciding factor. The vote was
really damn close last time, and you have people like me who voted against it last turn while committing to doing it this turn. We'll make it happen.
Once upon a time, a long long time ago, before there was covid, before VB2, and most of all before NetTally supported approval voting, there was a quest named "A Geek's Guide: Rise".
It was a modestly sized quest, much smaller than its predecessor, CORE. But its players knew each other, bargained with each other like lord of the flies, for the QM was mostly hands off preferring to use mechanics and the lack of write-ins to herd us around.
One day, we were voting on skill assignments after a crucial levelup, one whose unique circumstances gave us far, far more skill points and perk points to assign than normal. The course of much of the rest of the quest, years in the making and years yet to play out, would be determined here:
But there was a problem. Two schools of thought had emerged, one which allocated points on priorities directly, and another which arranged skill points and even a perk buy that
resulted in extra skill points in a particular way to immediately unlock a much sought after Advanced Class Skill.
This was fine enough in and of itself, and that second school of thought was clearly victorious... but the plan creator (yours truly) had made an error, and had chosen the worse of two perks to purchase for this purpose. Most votes had already been cast, and plan editing was verboten by local thread culture - dare we attempt to switch to a new plan, even as it would cede ground to the opposing school of thought that was otherwise losing?
"No," I said. "I have discovered a third way, and built it in a cave from a pile of scrap."
By using the Proxy Voting feature, whereby a user can vote for another user's name and be dynamically counted as voting for the same thing as the named user, players interested in switching to the new plan could instead vote [✖]
Prime 2.0, and be counted as voting for the same, old, and currently winning version of the plan... right up until I changed my vote to the new version of the plan, when they would retroactively be voting for that alongside me.
I knife fought for this, explaining and re-explaining the concept page after page: By running nettally with proxy voting disabled, I could compare the number of votes
for me plus the number of votes for the new plan variant against the number of votes for the opposing school's plan - once we reached a tipping point, I would switch my vote to the new plan, seamlessly changing the winning vote without ever allowing its main competitor to take the lead.
And when the opposing vote briefly rallied from what looked like a close race, I was able to flip right back, and bury them in a double digit lead again until more people switched over to voting for me so I could switch to the new plan once more.
I called it ironmanning. Supporters called it genius. Detractors called it cheating, or unfair, or somehow secret, or on one future occasion "
masturbatory".
But the QM called it a-ok, and I would go on to use ironmanning in future votes, and other quests, for some time - all the way up until approval voting became not just tallier supported, but QM understood and approved.
So speaking as a veteran of those before times who had outsized power in quests because I understood the tactics of pre-approval voting better than almost anyone else, I think it says something that I much prefer the forms of tactical voting that happen when approval voting is allowed than when it isn't.
Things are less convoluted now by far.