Policy Review Policy Review - Tiebreaking Procedure

[gorm]

ok i guess i have to agree with deck knight with 2 taking priority over one, the TL i guess just needs to stay vigilant throughout for this kind of thing.. How many runoff polls are we planning on having as a maximum though? Also hopefully this entire situation can be avoided with more bold voting

not trying to derail the thread to process/pacing!!

 

[X-Act]

Hmm... this might cause controversy and people might not agree with me, but I'll post it anyway.

I agree with this thread, but I feel that this should be applied even if a poll is won by only one vote or by two (not more). I feel that if the votes are, say, 52 to 50, then there is no overwhelming majority in the sense that if one of the 52s voted for the other one, the result would have been 51-51. The same applies for when the votes are 51-50 except that it would actually swing the result to the other submission.

Hence I'd propose that this happens not only in ties, but when the difference of the top two votes is at most 2.

In that case, option 1) would include also the sum total of the 'tied' poll, not only the previous ones, while option 2) would sum up the total of the 'tied' poll and of the most recent previous poll only.

Feel free to disagree with me if you don't agree; I'm merely putting this discussion on the table.

Whether or not this is agreed upon or not, I'd support first option 2), then option 1), then option 3). In the sense that if option 2) results in a tie, then option 1) is called for, then if that is also a tie, then the TL decides the winner (or what to do).

 

[jagged_angel]

Hmm... this might cause controversy and people might not agree with me, but I'll post it anyway.

I agree with this thread, but I feel that this should be applied even if a poll is won by only one vote or by two (not more). I feel that if the votes are, say, 52 to 50, then there is no overwhelming majority in the sense that if one of the 52s voted for the other one, the result would have been 51-51. The same applies for when the votes are 51-50 except that it would actually swing the result to the other submission.

Hence I'd propose that this happens not only in ties, but when the difference of the top two votes is at most 2.

In that case, option 1) would include also the sum total of the 'tied' poll, not only the previous ones, while option 2) would sum up the total of the 'tied' poll and of the most recent previous poll only.

Feel free to disagree with me if you don't agree; I'm merely putting this discussion on the table.

Whether or not this is agreed upon or not, I'd support first option 2), then option 1), then option 3). In the sense that if option 2) results in a tie, then option 1) is called for, then if that is also a tie, then the TL decides the winner (or what to do).

Has the situation that you're proposing occured before X-Act? Whereby a vote is won by a margin of 2 or less? I'm sure it's happened Many times in CAP and possibly more so in CAP5 with so many close polls. I'm trying to say that this rule would have a Big impact on the CAP final polls.

I think that the difference of 2 votes for implementing this rule is slightly arbitrary, not completely but slightly.

If the final poll is A52 to B50 and one person had voted B instead of A, yes it would be a tie. But if A54 and B50 and two people had voted B instead of A, it would still be a tie. The only difference is one extra person hypothetically changing their mind.

There's nothing significant to me about a voting winning by one or two votes, especially when normally a number of people in very close polls aren't that attached to the option they voted for and could easily have voted the other option.

There needs to be some strong evidence or reasoning for implementing this rule that you're proposing since it would change what has always been seen as a victory in past CAPs into a tiebreak situation. This may just confuse people and have the A52s whining that the B50s are getting an unfair lucky break.

In my opinion, if a final poll is won by one voter, it sucks for the other option supporters but it's still a win.

I think it would be more useful to introduce mandatory checking of IP addresses in this situation, more work for the TL but with help it wouldn't slow down the CAP and it would potentially change the outcome of the poll if one person or more voted twice.

 

[X-Act]

I knew that what I'm putting on the table is a bit controversial, so let me elaborate on my argument.

If 51 people want a Pokemon to be an Electric type and 50 people want it to be a Psychic type, I don't think that the Pokemon should really be an Electric type. A newbie could have easily visited CAP for the first time, without knowing what he or she is doing, and mindlessly voted for Electric, and suddenly Electric wins 51-50. That's a little bit random if you ask me, lol. You could say that the tiebreaker here was user OMG_Mudkipz_Pwns_J00 with his zero knowledge on the CAP metagame. Do we really want this?

 

[Time Mage]

Unfortunately, X-Act, there's no way to define a clear line in this. Why is a 3 votes difference significant, but a 2 votes difference is not? How do we know if the vote that changes the results is from a newbie or not? How do we know how many drive-by voters have contributed to each side?

We can't know. We can, and should, check for alt accounts on close polls, but once it's clear no one used alt accounts, I think a win should stay a win, even if it's by one vote.

 

[X-Act]

That's alright, but you'd forgive me if I'd be slightly bitter if my close losses were because of the opinion of user JUSTIN_TIMBERLAKE_IS_HOT_3829. :)

 

[tennisace]

I knew that what I'm putting on the table is a bit controversial, so let me elaborate on my argument.

If 51 people want a Pokemon to be an Electric type and 50 people want it to be a Psychic type, I don't think that the Pokemon should really be an Electric type. A newbie could have easily visited CAP for the first time, without knowing what he or she is doing, and mindlessly voted for Electric, and suddenly Electric wins 51-50. That's a little bit random if you ask me, lol. You could say that the tiebreaker here was user OMG_Mudkipz_Pwns_J00 with his zero knowledge on the CAP metagame. Do we really want this?

Yes, because thats what happens in democracy. This is why we need reasoning in the polls: to prevent this from happening. It doesn't matter how ignorant of the situation voter x is, his or her vote counts the same as anyone's. A majority is a majority, no matter how close it ends up.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

In the case of a tie vote, the following tiebreakers will be used to determine a winner:

1) The number of votes recieved in the single most recent previous poll
2) The sum total of all votes accumulated in all previous polls
3) Topic leader choice