Balancing the Risks

[freiana]

I think this is the third time I am going to ask this; what is your alternative? How are we going to make choices? When is a suggestion good and when not if we cannot listen to what we hear on the forums?

Edit: What Henkie said. I feel exactly the same way.

[Nalaris]

Because if we do that, we will scare away that 80% and that sucks a whole lot more.

No, you won't. It's simple: If you put up to a vote whether 20% of a community should be robbed for 1,000$ each and then give 250$ to everyone else in the community, the 80% will vote for that. They will have their justifications, but really it's just a fact that humans can be counted on to act selfishly even when they're clearly in the wrong. If that policy passed, you are basically guaranteed to see the 20% leave immediately, especially if it meant they could avoid being robbed by doing so. If that policy doesn't pass, it is extremely unlikely that the 80% would quit the community over it. Obviously passing money around has nothing to do with an internet forum, but I'm using it as an example of why no one should ever follow a poll result for any reason. It's important to know what people want and how many want them, but not because you actually want to use them to make any sorts of decisions, and as I've stated already, forums are no means of gauging player feelings. The feelings of the forums population are irrelevant. Too small to matter to the game at large, and signing up for the forum does not magically make you immune to the follies of mob rule.

And this:

I don't say we should directly do what the majority wants, I say we should NOT do what the majority DOESN'T want.

Sincerely makes me doubt that you are arguing in anything resembling good faith. "We should definitely follow the polls unless they disagree with me in which case we should ignore them" is not a position that's winning many points in my book.

Democracy IS tyranny of the majority, stop your socialist babble and just agree to the best way we have.

Dude, Thomas Jefferson was the guy who was all spooked about tyranny by majority. This isn't socialism, this is the basics of a functioning society. Do not turn this into a political debate, particularly if you're just going to spit out buzzwords. My argument is fundamentally an argument against socialism, the idea that you shouldn't overtax the rich just because the poor and middle classes outnumber them and will vote for it, etc. etc. The fundamental argument against socialism in the modern world is that it is tyranny by majority, because mobs are short-sighted and will do whatever benefits them the most immediately with no thought for longterm consequences. Bugger all, that response doesn't even make sense.

[Henkie]

Not my society, and we're at the top of the world

It's very very simple.

EVERYONE knows about the forum, we TELL them it's there and what it is.

They can CHOOSE to be a part of it whenever they want.

If they DON'T want to be a part, you won't be a part, because apparently, they don't WANT to.

There is absolutely NO justification for pulling these people into the decisions, they obviously don't want to, or they simply don't care.

[freiana]

I am simply going to ask it again, Nalaris; what is your alternative?

And for clarity; if I think I have a great idea, and I add a poll, and I see 80% of the people doesn't like it, I'll shrug and think, okay, to me it sounds good, but clearly they don't want it. Too bad, better luck next time. (If you wish, check it. I did actually do some suggestions that weren't received well) It doesn't only count for when I am against someone, it also works that way when I am in for the idea.

[Nalaris]

What, do you not know who Thomas Jefferson is? He is one of the founding fathers of the United States of America. Laws against the tyranny by majority are written into the Constitution and are the crux of the Bill of the Rights. You can get relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin on the subject, so unless you've got some whacked out definition of "top of the world" that doesn't include the reigning superpower, yes, it is the basis of your society.

And what are you talking about? I never suggested that we have non-forum goers as part of the decision-making process. I said a forum-poll would be a bad idea because an idea should stand on its own merits and not on the fact that it happens to be popular.

[freiana]

ALTERNATIVE PLEASE! How often am I going to have to ask? How do -you- propose to decide if an idea is good or not?

[Henkie]

Then apparently your idea of a good society is America... Guess all discussion ends there really.

[Nalaris]

Dude, we can do this again with the UK or France or whatever the Hell nation you want, because every functioning country on the planet works on this assumption that tyranny by majority is always a bad thing.

[freiana]

I am all for a discussion about global politics, but lets do that in some other forum.
I am really looking forward to the ALTERNATIVE... if it is there?

[Henkie]

Don't "dude" me, who do you think you are?


And stop your babble already, tyranny is bad, that's a given, democracy works on the basic principle that the majority is the group to please most, it's that simple. If you call it tyranny on a fudging internet game... well I'm sorry to say you're just a bit too sensitive. Get over it, it's just a game and it's been going good for over 10 years now, don't mess with a functioning system.

[Nalaris]

That's easy, you discuss the merits of an idea. How will it change the game, who will benefit and who will lose out, and by how much, how difficult will it be to implement and, thus, what other ideas will have to be put on hold while the devs work on this one, etc. etc. And then you get someone fair and impartial, someone who knows the game and wants it to succeed but doesn't have any characters of their own in the game and thus doesn't have any particular stake in the race. For most games, the dev team can fill that role, I dunno if the local devs do or don't have characters, though. What doesn't matter is how many people on the forum decide they like it five seconds after hearing about it, because trying to bludgeon people into submission with group consensus isn't democracy, it's bullying.

Also, while I don't like dragging nations into it because it means dealing with all kinds of baggage and buzzwords, a community does need to sort out what its standards for discussion are and why.

Don't "dude" me, who do you think you are?

You're reading a whole lot into my posts. That's just how I talk, it isn't a big deal. Calm down.

[freiana]

... someone fair and impartial, someone who knows the game and wants it to succeed but doesn't have any characters of their own in the game and thus doesn't have any particular stake in the race...

This person does not exist. We live in reality, not in a perfect model. Everybody has an opinion, there is no stopping that. Nobody can look at something and think -only- of the logical side behind it without having an opinion formed after reading half of the first sentence, either because they have played, because at one point they might play, or because someone they knew once told him something about the game, anything.
Now, next you propose the Dev Team... that is a GROUP of people, and thus, by your former reasoning, not fair, because you can't base your decisions on only a small group, right? If you are going to let this be done by a group... Lets take the bigger group, with more people and more opinions, so we can balance out better... Tadaa! A poll and forum discussion.

[Henkie]

There is no bullying here and no tyranny, I can only conclude you're delusional and/or over sensitive. Get some grip on reality again and stop selecting what you do and do not see.

I'm not reading anything into your post, 'dude' is used between friends or in a degrading fashion, neither we should participate in.

[Mitch79]

Ok, enough. Let's get back on topic shall we?

[Henkie]

It's "General Discussion", we can talk about whatever we want as long as it holds some connection to the topic, which it does.