Emma Barnes, Princess (Worm/Princess the Hopeful)

1986ctcel · Sep 30, 2015

Navrin said:
I... don't understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, either my vote/argument is needed or it won't change the result.

I don't want to participate in a quest with that kind of power struggle going on every round. I don't want to argue with people about which points are best. (Which isn't to say that I'm good at avoiding doing so, of course) I'm a LOT more interested in quests where my contributions are along the lines of providing ideas that are accepted, refined, or rejected and it's largely a united group deciding upon things. That's a lot more fun to me.

Hearts is only neck and neck with Storms because people have also split the vote over the other options

Storms-36
Hearts-36
Swords-5
Spades-4
Tears-4
Mirrors-1

See? If the Swords and Spades voters switched to Hearts then even if the Tears and Mirrors voters backed Storms instead of switching to Hearts then Hearts would win

Lord Ultimus · Sep 30, 2015

Personal life is getting in the way. Voting is extended until this afternoon.

Navrin · Sep 30, 2015

1986ctcel said:
Hearts is only neck and neck with Storms because people have also split the vote over the other options

See? If the Swords and Spades voters switched to Hearts then even if the Tears and Mirrors voters backed Storms instead of switching to Hearts then Hearts would win

How is that even remotely relevant to "what if your not voting causes those horrible atrocities to be committed"? I don't believe that my presence is particularly likely to end a vote-split (or cause it, for that matter). As such, my presence's value is still approximately one vote against performing evil. And having that kind of power struggle going on is not something I'd enjoy.

Also, I'll note that several of those people have moved from Swords to Storms instead of Hearts. I don't think you can count on people keeping to Radiant vs Twilight.

Balatro Philologus · Sep 30, 2015

[X] Grace (Choose Presence or Manipulation for one Transformed Attribute dot)
-[X] Manipulation
[X] Hearts
Because I really don't want to play as contagious Gavel 2.0 (also manip seems to be a more Emma attribute)

hamburgler · Sep 30, 2015

[X] Grace
-[X] Prescence
[X]Hearts

Omegahugger · Sep 30, 2015

Balatro Philologus said:
Because I really don't want to play as contagious Gavel 2.0 (also manip seems to be a more Emma attribute)

The Court of Storms would not approve of Gavel.

He didn't just accidentally harm Cape-families in his crusade against villany, he outright targeted them. That is not the Tempestas way. There's a difference between shooting a terrorist through his hostage and outright shooting a civilian so the terrorist doesn't get the chance to take the hostage to begin with.

Plus there's the whole part where none of us Storm-voters actually plan to play like that, even if it was a fitting Storm-interpretation.

Balatro Philologus · Sep 30, 2015

Omegahugger said:
The Court of Storms would not approve of Gavel.

He didn't just accidentally harm Cape-families in his crusade against villany, he outright targeted them. That is not the Tempestas way. There's a difference between shooting a terrorist through his hostage and outright shooting a civilian so the terrorist doesn't get the chance to take the hostage to begin with.

Plus there's the whole part where none of us Storm-voters actually plan to play like that, even if it was a fitting Storm-interpretation.

Ah, in that case I apologize for miss-characterizing your stance, I'm still voting hearts due to preference.

Lord Ultimus · Oct 1, 2015

Ok, Voting is CLOSED!
Let's see what the final count is!

Storms-42
Hearts-42
Swords-2
Spades-4
Tears-4
Mirrors-1

Ok, rolling, 1 gets storms, 2 gets hearts.
...

Hearts it is!Will start working on the next part ASAP

Navrin · Oct 1, 2015

If people are investigating "ballot stuffing" I'd advise them to look at every single vote, not just those that they want to find as potentially false. (And, of course, the QM has final say over the quest in every way other than whether or not the players participate and to what degree they do)

1986ctcel · Oct 1, 2015

Navrin said:
If people are investigating "ballot stuffing" I'd advise them to look at every single vote, not just those that they want to find as potentially false. (And, of course, the QM has final say over the quest in every way other than whether or not the players participate and to what degree they do)

Because two entirely new accounts on two separate sites made 30 minutes before the vote ended with their only posts being in these threads and for a highly contentious and nearly tied vote isn't suspicious AT ALL

Navrin · Oct 1, 2015

1986ctcel said:
Because two entirely new accounts on two separate sites made 30 minutes before the vote ended with their only posts being in these threads and for a highly contentious and nearly tied vote isn't suspicious AT ALL

Of course they're suspicious. However, looking only at whichever ones catch your eye is very subject to confirmation bias. One of the more obvious cheats is to just have accounts on two or three of the sites all voting for what you want.

Besides, they could easily be people who've been lurking and decided to join up so they could vote.

NS_QTR · Oct 1, 2015

Navrin said:
If people are investigating "ballot stuffing" I'd advise them to look at every single vote, not just those that they want to find as potentially false.

I did, actually. Went through all three threads. Those are the only accounts who voted with such a recent join date and low message count.

Navrin · Oct 1, 2015

NS_QTR said:
I did, actually. Went through all three threads. Those are the only accounts who voted with such a recent join date and low message count.

Which is precisely one form of suspicious. And suspicious isn't confirmation at all. There probably was cheating of some form or other going on... however, how much it affected both sides is REALLY difficult to figure out. Especially with the voting between three different fora.

Broken · Oct 1, 2015

I will repit here what i already said at SV: I will change my vote to storms. I don't like useless discussions.

Navrin · Oct 1, 2015

Broken said:
I will repit here what i already said at SV: I will change my vote to storms. I don't like useless discussions.

It is entirely up to the QM whether that is accepted. After all, it's past the voting period and the vote has been called.

Megaolix · Oct 1, 2015

This story is now over. Lord Ultimus violated rule 4 (No duplicate accounts) with the account hamburgler. Both accounts are now banned permanently.

zeitgeist · Oct 1, 2015

So for those of you who don't follow the SV thread, I talked with TheLordUltimus and he asked me to crosspost his explanation of what happened.

Lord Ultimus said:
Ok, Voting is CLOSED!
Ok, I did this. I admit it, when I wrote this quest, I didn't think that people would vote on the Twilight courts as much, so I put them up on there thinking that I wouldn't have to write for them. Turns out that one of the writers of PtH had some really good points, even though they weren't my cup of tea. So I created a new account and posted something to see if it would help.

Turns out that I got the vote count wrong anyways, but whatever. 1

I lucked out with the dice roll, but it's no excuse. All I can say is that this is my second ever quest, and I really had no idea that just say "I don't want to write this even if it won" was a legitimate option. But that is NO excuse for being dishonest, and for that I sincerely apologize.

I started writing a little for the next part, though I haven't gotten far. I don't want to write for Storms, but I also don't want to continue under false pretenses. So I'm coming clean, and I will ask you all this: should I continue this quest, or should I just drop this entirely? Because I would understand if people didn't want me to continue.

Again, I apologize, and I will never do something like this again, for whatever little it's worth.

1. Again for those not on SV, another member actually found out that his vote count was wrong and that storms actually won by a fair margin.

This being said, he'll be continuing the quest on SV, calling for a new vote this time without any twilight courts since a lot of the people who voted for hearts did so only because it wasn't storms and a lot of the storms probably have a second favorite in mind.

Onto the next order of business

Megaolix said:
This story is now over. Lord Ultimus violated rule 4 (No duplicate accounts) with the account hamburgler. Both accounts are now banned permanently.

Ultimus also wanted me to crosspost updates and explanations from there, and tell him the vote count. Essentially, taking over the running of the quest on QQ. It's been a while since I've really been on the forum....I think two years maybe so I'm not too aware of how board rules might have come to be interpreted, but reading the rules thread their doesn't seem to be anything against this. Still, I'd like to double check with the staff first to see if your fine with it.

Megaolix · Oct 1, 2015

zeitgeist said:
Ultimus also wanted me to crosspost updates and explanations from there, and tell him the vote count. Essentially, taking over the running of the quest on QQ. It's been a while since I've really been on the forum....I think two years maybe so I'm not too aware of how board rules might have come to be interpreted, but reading the rules thread their doesn't seem to be anything against this. Still, I'd like to double check with the staff first to see if your fine with it.

It may not be against the rules, but it's more because that kind of scenario is qutie unusual. why not just give a link and then be done with?

zeitgeist · Oct 1, 2015

Megaolix said:
https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/rules.1/

4: No duplicate accounts.
Sock-puppeting, or account duping of any kind is grounds for a permaban.

I already told which rule was violated when the ban was applied. And the rule is more than clear enough.

Err, I know, understand, and agree with why Ultimus was banned, I was asking whether or not it was against the rules for me to post his updates, gather votes, ect here. I agree that rule 4 is more then reasonable and clear, sorry for the mix up.

Megaolix said:
It may not be against the rules, but it's more because that kind of scenario is qutie unusual. why not just give a link and then be done with?

Their already happens to be one on the first post, I believe. The reason Ultimus wants to have a active thread here is that a number of voters don't really frequent SV or have a account there to vote, such as Navrin stated earlier in the thread. For those people, it'd probably be less of a hassle for them to have one they can check here instead of havign to frequent a forum they don't really participate in much or risk missing out on updates.

Megaolix · Oct 1, 2015

zeitgeist said:
Err, I know understand, and agree with why Ultimus banned, I was asking whether or not it was against the rules for me to post his updates, gather votes, ect here. I agree that rule 4 is more then reasonable and clear, sorry for the mix up.

No no, I was the one that misread the post in haste, hence why I deleted that first post. It was truly my fault here.

Their already happens to be one on the first post, I believe. The reason Ultimus wants to have a active thread here is that a number of voters don't really frequent SV or have a account there to vote, such as Navrin stated earlier in the thread. For those people, it'd probably be less of a hassle for them to have one they can check here instead of havign to frequent a forum they don't really participate in much or risk missing out on updates.

I'm going to talk to others staff members on this because the situation is unusual. I'll come back to you later on this.

zeitgeist · Oct 1, 2015

Megaolix said:
No no, I was the one that misread the post in haste, hence why I deleted that first post. It was truly my fault here.

No problem, everyone makes mistakes. XD

Megaolix said:
I'm going to talk to others staff members on this because the situation is unusual. I'll come back to you later on this.

Fair enough. I'll be eagerly waiting the staff's response.

Megaolix · Oct 1, 2015

zeitgeist said:
Fair enough. I'll be eagerly waiting the staff's response.

And I have one. Ultimus is banned and thus there's no reason to allow quest running by proxy. Readers are going to have to make the effort to go on SV and vote there if they want to vote.

zeitgeist · Oct 1, 2015

Megaolix said:
And I have one. Ultimus is banned and thus there's no reason to allow quest running by proxy. Readers are going to have to make the effort to go on SV and vote there if they want to vote.

Oh well. I'm disappointed, but I understand why. Thanks anyway for your time, and best wishes.

Emma Barnes, Princess (Worm/Princess the Hopeful)

Connoisseur.

Experienced.

Still finds own avatar hilarious

Inattentive Idiot

Still finds own avatar hilarious

Experienced.

Connoisseur.

Experienced.

Contradiction

Experienced.

Your first time is always over so quickly, isn't it?

Experienced.

Getting out there.

Getting out there.

Getting out there.

Getting out there.

Users who are viewing this thread