Before another semi-meaningless debate arising I like to ask, how many of you are up for redoing this whole poll again but without Greenhouse being an option from the start? At this moment of time, continuing onwards with the project and stopping just to do a fair poll isn't a problem with me.
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
CAP 3 CAP 3 - Part 9.5 (Main/Secondary Ability Poll)
- Thread starter Gothic Togekiss
- Start date
- Status
While it would be the democratic thing to do, it most likely won't make a difference. And you need to take into account, that people know from the start that Rock Head and Battle Armor will win this time, so they might just bandwagon Leaf Guard or something, just so one of them won't win. And that would be atleast just as unfair.
Wow, Aldaron thanks for putting it way more eloquently than I could!
GT, it's not actually about whether anyone cares that the democracy was compromised, it's about whether it was. If it was, IF you agree with what Aldaron's saying, then whether people care enough is irrelevant.
The people who care might be out to dinner, or having sex, or taking a day's holiday, doesn't mean you should let the vote stand because they aren't moaning about it.
You should have another vote because that's the only Fair thing to do.
Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.:naughty:
GT, it's not actually about whether anyone cares that the democracy was compromised, it's about whether it was. If it was, IF you agree with what Aldaron's saying, then whether people care enough is irrelevant.
The people who care might be out to dinner, or having sex, or taking a day's holiday, doesn't mean you should let the vote stand because they aren't moaning about it.
You should have another vote because that's the only Fair thing to do.
Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.:naughty:
Actually Grawl if people wanted to bandwagon Leaf Guard, that would be perfectly within their rights and perfectly fair. In fact I believe that's how most democratic elections are run, at least in countries with free speech.
Lol, no Grawl. What you "want" and what Democratic "is" are completely different.
"Bandwagoning" is perfectly Democratic, and one of the truly fascinating aspects of it, in my opinion. If people wish to bandwagon in a truly Democratic vote by jumping to Scrappy and therefore eliminating Battle Armor, it would be perfectly Democratic and perfectly acceptable.
The bottom line is that many individuals put their votes into Greenhouse and have been presented with a limited opportunity to change their votes (at the very least, their opportunity was not equal to the other's), and the presence of Greenhouse itself could have easily influenced the vote in the very way Grawl is lamenting against.
There were very extreme opinions on Greenhouse, and it is feasible that people bandwagoned to one of the obvious big two to make sure that Greenhouse did not win.
A vote with Greenhouse is a vote that does not truly represent what the people of CaP want, regardless of whether removing it would make a practical difference or not.
Remember, the beauty of the CaP project is that it is entirely a Democratic process.
"Bandwagoning" is perfectly Democratic, and one of the truly fascinating aspects of it, in my opinion. If people wish to bandwagon in a truly Democratic vote by jumping to Scrappy and therefore eliminating Battle Armor, it would be perfectly Democratic and perfectly acceptable.
The bottom line is that many individuals put their votes into Greenhouse and have been presented with a limited opportunity to change their votes (at the very least, their opportunity was not equal to the other's), and the presence of Greenhouse itself could have easily influenced the vote in the very way Grawl is lamenting against.
There were very extreme opinions on Greenhouse, and it is feasible that people bandwagoned to one of the obvious big two to make sure that Greenhouse did not win.
A vote with Greenhouse is a vote that does not truly represent what the people of CaP want, regardless of whether removing it would make a practical difference or not.
Remember, the beauty of the CaP project is that it is entirely a Democratic process.
Saying they had a "limited time" to change their votes is ridiculous. They had a limited time to place their votes in the first place too, but they still did. The poll reopened for 26 hours. That's about as long as the secondary typing poll was in it's entirety, if I recall correctly.
Let's say that all 14 of the "No ability" votes were Greenhouse votes, even though I distinctly remember at least a couple actual "No Ability" votes. Even if all 14 of those were placed into third place, Leaf Guard, it would still trail the leaders by 9-10 votes.
If you want to apply this to real world: Imagine if you voted in a Primary, and your candidate dropped out. You still voted, you can't unvote (which makes it even less fair than here), but they aren't going to go back and redo it because someone dropped out. Those votes will just be given to whoever that person decides to support, which isn't necessarily how the people would've voted.
Let's say that all 14 of the "No ability" votes were Greenhouse votes, even though I distinctly remember at least a couple actual "No Ability" votes. Even if all 14 of those were placed into third place, Leaf Guard, it would still trail the leaders by 9-10 votes.
If you want to apply this to real world: Imagine if you voted in a Primary, and your candidate dropped out. You still voted, you can't unvote (which makes it even less fair than here), but they aren't going to go back and redo it because someone dropped out. Those votes will just be given to whoever that person decides to support, which isn't necessarily how the people would've voted.
I'm afraid I'm being misunderstood here. I didn't mean it would be unfair, because it would be undemocractric. I fully agree it would be democratic. I don't think it would be fair, because Rock Head and Battle Armor are starting with a disadvantage. People already know these abilities will most likely need a bandwagon to be beaten, while in the previous poll every ability started from the same position.
I also agree, that another vote would be the democratic thing to do. But, because of the big lead Rock Head and Battle Armor, the only way another ability could win, would be by abusing the knowlegde of these abilities winning. So while I do think a revote might be more democratic, I think it would hurt the project more than declaring Rock Head and Battle Armor the winners.
I also agree, that another vote would be the democratic thing to do. But, because of the big lead Rock Head and Battle Armor, the only way another ability could win, would be by abusing the knowlegde of these abilities winning. So while I do think a revote might be more democratic, I think it would hurt the project more than declaring Rock Head and Battle Armor the winners.
Dane, who has ever claimed that the United States' method of "Democracy" is truly Democratic?
Not me, for sure. We run a facade of Democracy, lol. But that's a different subject.
Bottom line is that your "practical" example is not an example of Democracy.
What I also know is that it is kind of shady to add and remove an ability in the middle of a poll, as we did here. To maximize fairness, the moment a new ability was added, a new poll should have been created.
And whether or not you think "26 hours" is not enough, however "ridiculous" you might think it is, the bottom line is that others had more of an opportunity, and those "26 hours" were still not as much as those individuals.
Not me, for sure. We run a facade of Democracy, lol. But that's a different subject.
Bottom line is that your "practical" example is not an example of Democracy.
What I also know is that it is kind of shady to add and remove an ability in the middle of a poll, as we did here. To maximize fairness, the moment a new ability was added, a new poll should have been created.
And whether or not you think "26 hours" is not enough, however "ridiculous" you might think it is, the bottom line is that others had more of an opportunity, and those "26 hours" were still not as much as those individuals.
Dane you're missing the point entirely. Aldaron and Grawl just pointed out things might be very different if the poll were reconducted, as people might bandwagon something to ensure it wins, or people who voted rock head or battle armor in an attempt to bandwagon to beat Greenhouse might vote differently. Alternatively the poll end result might remain the same.
None of that matters.
We have the ability to correct the failure in the democratic process whereas in your real world example it would be costly and time consuming and unfeasible to redo the election because someone dropped out. It's not a particularly good example because Greenhouse didn't 'drop out', it was removed as part of a separate poll, this was a failure of the CAP project team but WE have the ability to correct that failure.
Your example shows how democracy sometimes Fails in real elections, lets Not mimic that failure here.
We have the opportunity to redo the poll, we have the time to redo the poll, we have the most important Reason to redo the poll, Soooooooooooo let's redo the poll eh?
None of that matters.
We have the ability to correct the failure in the democratic process whereas in your real world example it would be costly and time consuming and unfeasible to redo the election because someone dropped out. It's not a particularly good example because Greenhouse didn't 'drop out', it was removed as part of a separate poll, this was a failure of the CAP project team but WE have the ability to correct that failure.
Your example shows how democracy sometimes Fails in real elections, lets Not mimic that failure here.
We have the opportunity to redo the poll, we have the time to redo the poll, we have the most important Reason to redo the poll, Soooooooooooo let's redo the poll eh?
Everyone had the same 26 hours. Just because they didn't log on doesn't mean they didn't have that time to vote or change their vote.
At what point do you draw the line for how long is enough time to vote? If 26 isn't enough to change the vote, in addition to the 25 hours from when the "Remove Greenhouse" poll started, what is enough? That's a little over two days right there, which is about the average for polls in the timeline.
Should we make each poll take a week, so those who can only get on during the weekends can vote? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
It might not be fair that one of their initial votes was changed to No Ability (essentially a vote for null), but they had ample time to recognize the situation and act.
At what point do you draw the line for how long is enough time to vote? If 26 isn't enough to change the vote, in addition to the 25 hours from when the "Remove Greenhouse" poll started, what is enough? That's a little over two days right there, which is about the average for polls in the timeline.
Should we make each poll take a week, so those who can only get on during the weekends can vote? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
It might not be fair that one of their initial votes was changed to No Ability (essentially a vote for null), but they had ample time to recognize the situation and act.
Grawl if you think about it people have two votes, so Rock Head and Battle Armor can be voted for together. Any other ability can only be voted for once per person, therefore anypeople bandwagoning to avoid Rock Head and Battle Armor must be more numerous than people supporting Rock Head and Battle Armor. If they are more numerous, they should win! This will be fair and democratic. If however there are people who can be persuaded to still vote for RH and BA, then what's to stop you bandwagoning those two as well.
In fact I wish to argue that some people may have only voted RH and BA Because of Greenhouse. They were bandwagoning to avoid it! Is that fair? No, it's unfair by my definition and yours.
I disagree, what you view as ample time, I view as not enough time.
But that is not the point. As Aldaron just said: To maximize fairness, the moment a new ability was added, a new poll should have been created.
So then, what's enough time? It's been shown throughout this project that 2-3 days is too much, but 1 is too little? Not forgetting that there was another 25 hours before those 26, where it was pretty obvious Greenhouse was going to be removed. There's two days right there. If that isn't enough, then when do we draw the line?
I would've agreed had it been done right when it happened. However, now results have been posted, which can (and will, don't kid yourself) skew results of a new poll. This is exactly the reason it's stated in the Process Guide and the OP that only the TL is to post a running tally, to prevent unnecessary bandwagoning and such.
And just so no one thinks I'm doing this because I wanted those abilities to win: I voted Battle Armor and Leaf Guard (#2 and #3 highest counts).
Wait, are you saying that because the results have been tallied and therefore bandwagoning might occur, that we should not take the truly Democratic way right now...?
Bandwagoning, btw, is wholly Democratic. I do not understand what the problem with bandwagoning is...people realize a winner, and if they don't like it, they "band together" to defeat it...sounds like Democracy to me...
Bandwagoning, btw, is wholly Democratic. I do not understand what the problem with bandwagoning is...people realize a winner, and if they don't like it, they "band together" to defeat it...sounds like Democracy to me...
As fair as it would be, I honestly really do not care enough to see the same two abilities win again, or to see one being bandwagoned just to beat the other two, which may be more fair or democratic but is definitely still against my morals.
If you're gonna redo the ability poll, at least implement some way for No Seocnd Ability to be viable, because with a Top2 being the two official abilities there is no chance at that.
If you're gonna redo the ability poll, at least implement some way for No Seocnd Ability to be viable, because with a Top2 being the two official abilities there is no chance at that.
Yes, bandwagoning is democratic when it looks like something will win. When something has been declared the winner, and then someone goes "Oh, oops, redo!"... then it isn't so much.
Here's what I'd like to know: Why wasn't this issue brought up 30+ hours ago, when the poll was first reopened? Why did it wait until AFTER it had closed, and AFTER the results had been tallied? And no one has stated how long is long enough yet, either. Just that 1 is too little, and 2-3 seems to be too much.
No Second Ability should definitely be a viable option if and when the poll is redone.
Dane I never said 2-3 days would have been too long to wait to redo the poll. The point was that it was flawed therefore even if we waited til all the people who voted Greenhouse had recast their votes it wouldn't be as fair as redoing the poll from the start.
I'm sorry I didn't flag up this issue before now, I'm not perfect, and I do have a life. Maybe others noticed, but don't care enough to point out the failure of the democratic process. In fact, Mekkah's basically just said this.
Whatever, now that the issue has been flagged up, would it kill us to redo the poll and eliminate the flaws previously present?
Dane I never said 2-3 days would have been too long to wait to redo the poll. The point was that it was flawed therefore even if we waited til all the people who voted Greenhouse had recast their votes it wouldn't be as fair as redoing the poll from the start.
I'm sorry I didn't flag up this issue before now, I'm not perfect, and I do have a life. Maybe others noticed, but don't care enough to point out the failure of the democratic process. In fact, Mekkah's basically just said this.
Whatever, now that the issue has been flagged up, would it kill us to redo the poll and eliminate the flaws previously present?
What does time regarding this being brought up have to do with anything...?
I still don't understand how Jagged_Angel and I asking for a redo, however, is bandwagoning...I'm just trying to maximize fairness here. We really did commit two extraordinarily shady actions in this poll...one add an ability without starting a new poll, and two removing that ability without starting a new poll, lol. I had slight concerns regarding this before, but for some arbitrary reason I've really only been adamant about it now. Couldn't tell you why, except in very general terms.
For me, it was simply because I decided to get back into this topic at this juncture. I haven't really been too actively involved with this topic because honestly, the Ability really does not interest me, lol.
But my interest level and my timing both have nothing to do with the integrity of the Democratic process.
I still don't understand how Jagged_Angel and I asking for a redo, however, is bandwagoning...I'm just trying to maximize fairness here. We really did commit two extraordinarily shady actions in this poll...one add an ability without starting a new poll, and two removing that ability without starting a new poll, lol. I had slight concerns regarding this before, but for some arbitrary reason I've really only been adamant about it now. Couldn't tell you why, except in very general terms.
For me, it was simply because I decided to get back into this topic at this juncture. I haven't really been too actively involved with this topic because honestly, the Ability really does not interest me, lol.
But my interest level and my timing both have nothing to do with the integrity of the Democratic process.
I had a feeling you would mention that problem up again and the fact that the "no secondary ability" option would come back and bite me in the ass :(
I'm sorry but I couldn't follow with you on what you meant here. D:
To be honest with you, my gut instinct tells me that redoing the ability poll isn't really needed and that we should continue with the project. A redo of this poll would probably be more fair(er) though I kinda wished this problem with Greenhouse removal was brought up when the idea was mention/the reopening of this thread.
This is what I was trying to say.
GT, to prevent further discussions with no end, I think you should just make a call.
GT, you're the Team Leader and as such I'll accept any decision you make.
Here I'm just explaining the part of my post you didn't follow:
I feel strongly about this issue because as Aldaron and I have explained, the CAP project is supposed to be about democratically building new pokemon.
Sometimes, democracy breaks down and people don't always realise that right away.
That was the case in this instance, where the Ability poll should have been closed then redone from the start when Greenhouse was removed. Scrappy should not have been added halfway through, and No Ability should have been clearly stated as a viable 2nd choice so that people who only wanted one ability could choose it.
If you agree that it would be more fair(er) then Hurrah for democracy but that doesn't mean anything if you don't act on it.
Here I'm just explaining the part of my post you didn't follow:
I feel strongly about this issue because as Aldaron and I have explained, the CAP project is supposed to be about democratically building new pokemon.
Sometimes, democracy breaks down and people don't always realise that right away.
That was the case in this instance, where the Ability poll should have been closed then redone from the start when Greenhouse was removed. Scrappy should not have been added halfway through, and No Ability should have been clearly stated as a viable 2nd choice so that people who only wanted one ability could choose it.
Please please please consider how important it is to maintain a fair democratic process throughout every Create-A-Pokemon. By all means, continue with the Sprite Submission process but would it be so much trouble to have another Ability poll?
If you agree that it would be more fair(er) then Hurrah for democracy but that doesn't mean anything if you don't act on it.
Originally Posted by Fat jagged_angel 
GT, it's not actually about whether anyone cares that the democracy was compromised, it's about whether it was. If it was, IF you agree with what Aldaron's saying, then whether people care enough is irrelevant.
What I was trying to say here is that it doesn't matter whether or not people care.
If you agree that it would be more fair to redo the poll, then that is the only factor that should influence your decision. Don't consider whether people care enough one way or t'other, and don't worry about holding up the project (what could be more important a hold up than to make sure the CAP project is democratic), just decide whether it is fair and democratic and go from there.
I think that's what I was trying to say *sheepish grin*.
GT, it's not actually about whether anyone cares that the democracy was compromised, it's about whether it was. If it was, IF you agree with what Aldaron's saying, then whether people care enough is irrelevant.
What I was trying to say here is that it doesn't matter whether or not people care.
If you agree that it would be more fair to redo the poll, then that is the only factor that should influence your decision. Don't consider whether people care enough one way or t'other, and don't worry about holding up the project (what could be more important a hold up than to make sure the CAP project is democratic), just decide whether it is fair and democratic and go from there.
I think that's what I was trying to say *sheepish grin*.
why do we need another poll, the 2nd placed has nearly twice as many votes, even if all 14 no abilities were originally for greenhouse and then went and bandwagoned to leaf guard, it is still 9 votes behind.
- Status