[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7378) Vote command for server

["ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7378 >

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:47:35PM -0800, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7378 >
> 
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Turn 23
> > A: vote bla
> > Turn 24
> > B: vote yes
> > Turn 25 -> execute the vote.
> >
> > That is bad forvotes on timeout, cut or aitoggle.
> 
> Yes, obviously. However - if you have timeout, then cut and aitoggle will
> eventually be resolved.  I guess one option is to start timeout if there
> is none when a vote is called.

And what is with the vote for options in the pregame? There has to be a
turnindependent mechanism.
 
> > Yes special cases are a bad idea. But i think votes should be executed
> > the following way:
> >
> > more than 50% of the players vote for (no veto)
> > after the 2 turn rule 1 or 2 players vote for it (no veto)
> 
> So if the 50% players are faster to vote than the 1 best player who wants
> to veto his /cut, he gets booted out of the game? That is not fair either.
> Players need to get time to vote both ways.

The best player has no chance when most of the other players are
gangbanging the player.

And now only 1 player is needed to do all the evil things. I think when
a majority of players wants to change something it should be done in
most cases. It's not possible to prevent players from doing all evil
things. The goal is to make it a little bit fairer.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Strub  ***  eMail ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jb: people are stupid, they don't want to learn.