fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
Dam it.
Dragon Ball: After the End
Cariyaga
Handsome Gentleperson
- Location
- United States
Approval voting please senpai-san?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
It leaves much to be desired, I can say, having used it bare moments before you used NetTally.
I would simply like to note for the record that this creates a very perverse incentive structure.
Because if a plan we like is 'abandoned,' in that its creator can't modify or replace it... Then attempts to incrementally improve on it, even within a few hours of its creation, result in vote splitting disadvantages that are extremely difficult to overcome.
My view is that this punishes people for listening to criticism and trying to respond to it by compromising. And it rewards people for obstinately sticking to their guns and emotionally investing as much as possible into inflexible outcomes.
Is there any way to resolve this issue? Contingent "I vote for this, or if not this then that" approaches that remind me of instant runoff voting seem appealing, but if they're too much work on your end, I understand that.
Sucal
The Devil’s Cut
- Location
- Bottom of the barrel
That's why you tag the people still voting for the old plan and see if they want to switch over.
In the bluntest possible fashion, thats pretty much our problem not Poptarts. If the two things are similar enough they might get merged, but if they have one or more points of divergence then its generally up to us to try and get people to switch.
The solution is simply to not vote at all for a plan which has not completed its discussion and had its draft finalized. That's the dynamic the moratoriums exist to encourage. Availability limits are handled by assigning proxy authority or just deferring to the later, better informed voters.
Last edited:
- Location
- The Great Beyond
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
Proxy is a powerful thing, yeah. I missed the entire voting period after placing my proxy vote- and yet my proxy vote was involved in the winning outcome.
While I, personally, would not have been excessively broken up if 'not again v3' had won, looking over it, I am more than pleased with where my vote did, in fact, go, so if you have a good idea of how you can trust another voter to vote, proxy votes are an effective solution.
I use them often in quests, since frequently plans need to be update while I am not around.
So I can attest, that proxy votes are an excellent way, if you think you can trust the way a voter will vote, and believe they'll be around after you and so forth, to handle this issue.
Incidentally, thank you, Lailoken, for actually voting. I know you usually don't like to.
This seems a rather massive assumption, to be honest- I, personally, do not care about the fact that Kakara is a pacifist- one way or the other. I am willing to work with it but am in no way attached to the idea of her as a pacifist. I like the character, overall, but, I, at least, out of the playerbase never cared about whether she was a pacifist or not.
Indeed, I may be guilty of inadequately considering the pacifist angle on the basis I am simply not considering it plenty often, not because I am courting some romanticized ideal or whatever and not considering the traits framing. (the latter part, sure, but not the former)
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The four hour moratorium did a great job of preventing any reckless bandwagon formation (ten people reflexively voting for one ill-considered scheme in the first hour). What it can't do is permit extended feedback cycles, which makes it hard to fix problems with plans and easy to just naysay and criticize early plans to death without being able to offer a better alternative that accomplishes similar goals.
- Location
- USA
Well, whatever gets us out of this event is good enough for me. Since that has been settled are we allowed to start discussing Kakara's morality, pacifism, *several topics I am inevitably forgetting*, and how the thread as a whole wants to move forward?
For example, I would personally like to have her to understand that in some cases a small burst of violence is needed to be done before all other options have been exhausted to prevent greater violence. Or something like that. I don't want to totally get rid of pacifism, but I do want a bigger opening to view violence as an option than the absolute last resort.
Thoughts? time to catch up on all the omakes in the thread while people ignore me
For example, I would personally like to have her to understand that in some cases a small burst of violence is needed to be done before all other options have been exhausted to prevent greater violence. Or something like that. I don't want to totally get rid of pacifism, but I do want a bigger opening to view violence as an option than the absolute last resort.
Thoughts? time to catch up on all the omakes in the thread while people ignore me
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Personally my inclinations run in almost the opposite direction.
As alluded to in one of my posts earlier, I'd like to push things towards:
1) Being peaceful at the start is both easier and more rewarding than allowing things to escalate and having to stop them later by switching away from violence. Be very hesitant to try and use "just a little" violence in a small burst, because by nature, violence begets more violence. Violent actions provoke violent responses, and the process grows beyond what anyone, even a super-saiyan, can hope to control.
2) There are certain times and places where violence is the only option that doesn't make things rapidly worse. Such situations are rare, but they happen. At those times and places, there is no need to feel undue guilt over engaging in the violence. Because "it is not a sin to fight for the right cause."
________________
(2) is something Kakara explicitly doesn't understand yet but may grow into. Hopefully we can work on that.
(1) is something WE need to learn even more than Kakara does. Left side of road, safe; right side of road, safe; middle of road, go 'squish.'
It is much easier to plan for a "short victorious war" to improve your situation than it is to actually improve your situation by trying to fight the war. It is easy to tell yourself "I'll punch him in the face once, THEN tell him to stand down," but human and near-human psychology doesn't work that way. Punch someone once and if they were ever likely to engage in violence in the first place, think about what happens. They won't stand down; they'll fight back against the person who just hurt them.
Most problems in Dragonball Z are problems that in theory you could probably punch your way out of, if you figure out the right way to punch and get good enough at it. It's the way the setting works. So emphasizing violent resolution to conflict (including nonlethal brawls) can work... sort of.
At the same time, there is a lot to be said for peaceful resolutions, joining the hands of former foes, finding ways to overcome problems without fighting and killing, That is a valid road for Kakara to walk, very much so.
But combining violent and peaceful options 50/50 won't work, especially when it involves starting off with the violence and then expecting to be able to clamp back down and re-assert control of the situation after violence has begun. We should be reluctant to start fighting precisely because once you have started a fight, you must finish it.
As alluded to in one of my posts earlier, I'd like to push things towards:
1) Being peaceful at the start is both easier and more rewarding than allowing things to escalate and having to stop them later by switching away from violence. Be very hesitant to try and use "just a little" violence in a small burst, because by nature, violence begets more violence. Violent actions provoke violent responses, and the process grows beyond what anyone, even a super-saiyan, can hope to control.
2) There are certain times and places where violence is the only option that doesn't make things rapidly worse. Such situations are rare, but they happen. At those times and places, there is no need to feel undue guilt over engaging in the violence. Because "it is not a sin to fight for the right cause."
________________
(2) is something Kakara explicitly doesn't understand yet but may grow into. Hopefully we can work on that.
(1) is something WE need to learn even more than Kakara does. Left side of road, safe; right side of road, safe; middle of road, go 'squish.'
It is much easier to plan for a "short victorious war" to improve your situation than it is to actually improve your situation by trying to fight the war. It is easy to tell yourself "I'll punch him in the face once, THEN tell him to stand down," but human and near-human psychology doesn't work that way. Punch someone once and if they were ever likely to engage in violence in the first place, think about what happens. They won't stand down; they'll fight back against the person who just hurt them.
Most problems in Dragonball Z are problems that in theory you could probably punch your way out of, if you figure out the right way to punch and get good enough at it. It's the way the setting works. So emphasizing violent resolution to conflict (including nonlethal brawls) can work... sort of.
At the same time, there is a lot to be said for peaceful resolutions, joining the hands of former foes, finding ways to overcome problems without fighting and killing, That is a valid road for Kakara to walk, very much so.
But combining violent and peaceful options 50/50 won't work, especially when it involves starting off with the violence and then expecting to be able to clamp back down and re-assert control of the situation after violence has begun. We should be reluctant to start fighting precisely because once you have started a fight, you must finish it.
The moratoriums prevent the most egregious misbehavior, but they are also a nudge. Extended feedback cycles are a good thing. If a plan is still being changed in response to discussion it obviously isn't finished cooking yet and nobody should be voting for it at all until it is. If you aren't going to be able to check in at some point after it is finalized, but expect that you will like the final version anyway, you can vote for the planmaker and explicitly trust their judgement. If you aren't sure which final plan you'd end up supporting you can proxy your vote to somebody who will be present after they're finalized an can make the decision for you. If neither of those work for you or you are in danger of using them to excess you can just skip the vote instead of increasing the random and systemic error of the result with a poorly determined decision. If you can't afford to participate properly in a particular decision simply forgoing voting for anything at all for a turn and letting those who can afford the investment do so unimpeded by mindless tides isn't a terribly burdensome expectation.
I remain confused as to why so many people seem to believe that Kakara has to handle this, personally, and that achieving the same objective by responsibly allowing somebody else who's already paid the price to get involved to take point while Kakara runs support is some kind of additional failure. i don't want to just write it off as irrational commitment escalation and/or pure vainglory instead of being a team player, but it sure smells that way.
Kakara should resolve conflict by going Super Saiyan and holding her breath until she turns blue.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere I shouldn't be
Well crapbaskets.
I've been in the middle of a move, and I typed my last post yesterday as I was preparing to leave work.
Now I get online, almost 24 hours later (yay, I have internet and a working computer again!) and my vote got split into a 'v3' that doesn't really look that different from v2 (V2 had Cabba pretending to power up using a non-kaio ken move, too) but is seemingly different enough to have split the vote...
Which leaves us in the worst situation I could imagine.
Oh well, we'll recover from this situation (somehow) and still destroy the enemy's ability to conquer us (preferably by negotiation, otherwise by explosions).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and buy a replacement monitor
My main one was mishandled during the move, and is borked.
I've been in the middle of a move, and I typed my last post yesterday as I was preparing to leave work.
Now I get online, almost 24 hours later (yay, I have internet and a working computer again!) and my vote got split into a 'v3' that doesn't really look that different from v2 (V2 had Cabba pretending to power up using a non-kaio ken move, too) but is seemingly different enough to have split the vote...
Which leaves us in the worst situation I could imagine.
Oh well, we'll recover from this situation (somehow) and still destroy the enemy's ability to conquer us (preferably by negotiation, otherwise by explosions).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and buy a replacement monitor
My main one was mishandled during the move, and is borked.
Bakkasama
There is always a greater fool
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Pronouns
- He/his
I think we should stick to Kakara's definition of pacifism now that we know a bit more about it. If we want more options and a chance to get physical we could focus on developing techniques that help descalate without using violence. Ki blocking, restraining techniques and the like but still using them as a last resource. Sincé those don't aim to hurt, I was under the impression they wouldn't fall within the definition of violence. I don't think that Kakara should use them as first resource since while her pacifism since focused in that it is wrong to hurt others, it would still mean using forcé to get what she wants and that... that sounds almost as bad as hurting people. Though Berra did pretty much that when he manhandled Kakara while she was trying to stop the sealing.
I will also try to tone down in respecting Berra's authority and trying to avoid making desitions for the whole species/planet. After all, Kakara is now a teenager, which means she knows better than everyone else specially her parents. She can be trusted with that responsability.
That said, @PoptartProdigy would The Examined Life option on next year vote work on the trait Cognitive Dissonance? It sounds like something Kakara would spend time thinking about after all.
- Location
- Somewhere I shouldn't be
I've been assuming it would. That said, assumptions have bitten me in the past...
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
KaintukeeBob, my sincere apologies. I was honestly expecting you to come back, OR that my requests that "version 3" votes be mapped back to "version 2" votes if it came down to a split would be honored.Well crapbaskets.
I've been in the middle of a move, and I typed my last post yesterday as I was preparing to leave work.
Now I get online, almost 24 hours later (yay, I have internet and a working computer again!) and my vote got split into a 'v3' that doesn't really look that different from v2 (V2 had Cabba pretending to power up using a non-kaio ken move, too) but is seemingly different enough to have split the vote...
Which leaves us in the worst situation I could imagine.
Oh well, we'll recover from this situation (somehow) and still destroy the enemy's ability to conquer us (preferably by negotiation, otherwise by explosions).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and buy a replacement monitor
Since neither of those happened, I wound up screwing up the situation by trying to help address problems pointed out by critics of your plan (e.g. Lailoken).
EDIT:
If I'd been cunning, I would have copypasted the "version 2" vote text into "version 3" at the last minute or something, because that's what almost everyone who voted Version 3 wanted.
I apologize, also, for not being that kind of cunning, even if it IS supposed to be bad behavior in a quest vote.
Last edited:
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
To be fair, the contingency was if V3 didn't gain ground, but it was the majority of votes for Not Again. It did gain ground, it's just that not enough people managed to switch before the vote changed.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I still feel like, under the circumstances, I should have not tried to participate in compromise and extended discussion and just voted for V2 (warts and all) and encouraged others to do so. That's the way the incentives run when there's no such thing as preference voting- you have to pick the least bad option and defend it vigorously against all comers. Because compromise means getting your vote split, at which point you can lose to a fairly narrow plurality candidate.
This is further complicated by the fact that voters often don't know in advance how long a vote period is going to be open for, so they cannot predict whether they'll be in any position to participate in the last 8, 12, or even 16 hours of voting and discussion. It's hard to decide to proxy because you'll be at work when the vote is decided, when you don't know whether the vote will close at midnight or noon local time.
There is the further issue of key information being revealed part way through the discussion process or even near the end of it. If someone has a really good idea that nobody thought of at the "T minus six hours" mark, are they just supposed to sit on it for fear of causing a vote split? Especially when, as noted above, they don't always know six or twelve or however many hours in advance how long the vote period is?
The situation is even more problematic othan in real life political campaigns, where at least the elections are held with a very long period to discuss the issues in advance and where the polls close at a well-defined, specified time.
So, looking at this in the abstract, it really does seem like there's a case for preference voting- or something like it, IF there were a practical way to implement it.
Being on a community of anonymous Internet people tends to undermine that foundation.
1) Actually subdue the scout.
2) Maintain Berra's deception plan, so far as possible, so that the aliens don't realize this planet is defended by ultra-powerful warriors and start blabbing to the larger galaxy.
3) Damage control with Maya. In particular, stopping Maya from being damaged physically, while if possible avoiding anything that would unambiguously reveal to her that she's being badly decieved.
The very reason that "Not Again" in its various incarnations was such a popular version of the plan (overwhelmingly more popular than any other single plan that involves action as opposed to fleeing) is because it outsources (1) to Cabba, an experienced fighter, (2) to Berra, an experienced politician, and (3) to Kakara, Maya's best friend.
As to why people voted for action as opposed to fleeing?
Well, like it or not, Kakara has a reputation to be concerned with despite her young age. She may be a child in our eyes, but in the eyes of her own people she's the Scion of Goku and one of the four most physically powerful entities on the planet. She's somewhere between 'superhero' and 'demigod,' and for at least half of the exile community she's going to be de facto queen starting within the next couple of decades.
Running away from this situation, in addition to the high risk that the alien will use his ki to signal his friends and escape, gives us a major negative to our reputation. Sure, Daddy can fix it, but Daddy trusted us to have the power and maturity to handle it ourselves. Given that we're already engaged in adult-level political conspiracy, and given that we have like a thousand times more raw power than everyone else involved in the conflict put together... That was probably a reasonable expectation on his part.
The situation wasn't irretrievably ruined just because Kakara entered the fight; there were many ways to get a resolution that the saiyan community at large would approve of. Sure, it might mess up one of Kakara's traits, but they don't care about that. They care about results. And in the first real test of Kakara's ability to deliver results to the general benefit of her community, in a crisis situation that requires martial prowess and good judgment... Kakara ran away rather than fight. That's probably going to have ramifications.
My argument is that vote splitting tends to act against that dynamic by penalizing extended feedback cycles, unless literally everyone who votes in the early phase just proxies their vote over to someone else.
This is further complicated by the fact that voters often don't know in advance how long a vote period is going to be open for, so they cannot predict whether they'll be in any position to participate in the last 8, 12, or even 16 hours of voting and discussion. It's hard to decide to proxy because you'll be at work when the vote is decided, when you don't know whether the vote will close at midnight or noon local time.
There is the further issue of key information being revealed part way through the discussion process or even near the end of it. If someone has a really good idea that nobody thought of at the "T minus six hours" mark, are they just supposed to sit on it for fear of causing a vote split? Especially when, as noted above, they don't always know six or twelve or however many hours in advance how long the vote period is?
The situation is even more problematic othan in real life political campaigns, where at least the elections are held with a very long period to discuss the issues in advance and where the polls close at a well-defined, specified time.
So, looking at this in the abstract, it really does seem like there's a case for preference voting- or something like it, IF there were a practical way to implement it.
All this is implicitly set up on a foundation made of a high level of coordination, plus detailed knowledge of the schedules and habits of other quest participants.
Being on a community of anonymous Internet people tends to undermine that foundation.
As I see it, there are three important tasks. It doesn't matter how they get done, unless there are unusual long term consequences. But it does matter that they get done. The tasks are:
1) Actually subdue the scout.
2) Maintain Berra's deception plan, so far as possible, so that the aliens don't realize this planet is defended by ultra-powerful warriors and start blabbing to the larger galaxy.
3) Damage control with Maya. In particular, stopping Maya from being damaged physically, while if possible avoiding anything that would unambiguously reveal to her that she's being badly decieved.
The very reason that "Not Again" in its various incarnations was such a popular version of the plan (overwhelmingly more popular than any other single plan that involves action as opposed to fleeing) is because it outsources (1) to Cabba, an experienced fighter, (2) to Berra, an experienced politician, and (3) to Kakara, Maya's best friend.
As to why people voted for action as opposed to fleeing?
Well, like it or not, Kakara has a reputation to be concerned with despite her young age. She may be a child in our eyes, but in the eyes of her own people she's the Scion of Goku and one of the four most physically powerful entities on the planet. She's somewhere between 'superhero' and 'demigod,' and for at least half of the exile community she's going to be de facto queen starting within the next couple of decades.
Running away from this situation, in addition to the high risk that the alien will use his ki to signal his friends and escape, gives us a major negative to our reputation. Sure, Daddy can fix it, but Daddy trusted us to have the power and maturity to handle it ourselves. Given that we're already engaged in adult-level political conspiracy, and given that we have like a thousand times more raw power than everyone else involved in the conflict put together... That was probably a reasonable expectation on his part.
The situation wasn't irretrievably ruined just because Kakara entered the fight; there were many ways to get a resolution that the saiyan community at large would approve of. Sure, it might mess up one of Kakara's traits, but they don't care about that. They care about results. And in the first real test of Kakara's ability to deliver results to the general benefit of her community, in a crisis situation that requires martial prowess and good judgment... Kakara ran away rather than fight. That's probably going to have ramifications.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere I shouldn't be
It was a fair thing to expect. I'm a bit salty, but I don't hold anyone in particular to blame. I haven't done a point-by-point compare between the two versions (it doesn't seem really relevant at the moment, since the vote failed to carry) but I'm sure it was a good plan.
I try to respond to the legitimate criticisms of others in the thread, and you stepped up to do that in my stead. For that, you have my thanks.
I also support Poptart's decision to not allow cascading votes - that seems like it could seriously screw up the counts as conditions continually activate whenever the 'winning' vote changes due to conditions. It could easily get cyclical.
I'm just really glad that the vote which won wasn't 'POWER UP AND MURDER!!!'
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I'd have done better to be an inflexible fanatic on the subject.
Since Poptart is waaaaay too smart to actually get caught in a recursive if-then loop, I'm sympathetic but not worried about that possibility.
...Okay, yes. It could have been so very much worse. Point.
- Location
- The Great Beyond
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
Do you really want to get into that kinda crap? I run quests- if the single highest vote is x, then the single highest vote is x.
I can scarcely imagine the sheer backlash I'd face if I started lumping in 'votes I the qm thought similar with the highest vote within that "similar" winning'... while being like 10% of the vote. I can only imagine the 'but the majority thing was the second preference' I'd see, and similar. That's... territory you should not enter, it's bad, I can't even begin to explain how bad.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
If we recognize the ways in which "highest scoring vote is highest scoring vote" encourages tactical voting.... And if we understand how it incentivizes people to ignore objections to their plans rather than trying to fix perceived problems for fear of causing a split... And if we think that those are good things...
Then there isn't a problem with "single highest vote is single highest vote."
If, then.
Then there isn't a problem with "single highest vote is single highest vote."
If, then.
Last edited: