CEONSS

Cheese_it! wrote:</rant on>
Why the hell would you actually want to allow people to accumulate votes?
The answer must surely be "So they can have multiple votes". But why??

I think everyone should get ONE vote and if they don't use it, the vote is lost.

Eg a couple of evenings ago, ... we were all voting as usual at the and of a game, it looked like a good map (Urban) was going to win but BLAM along comes HD Viice with 9 votes for MasterBath.
So, we all had to play this fucking crappy retarded kiddy map just because HDViice wanted, even though only one player wanted it. Result: Everyone gets pissed off (apart from Viice who is now laughing)

Democracy? i think not. Do the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? Maybe we should apply this to real life too.
Let's see --- I haven't voted in the previous two general elections in the UK - does that mean I get THREE votes next year?
Would that be fair to the people who vote every time? (hint: NO it wouldn't!)

</rant off>

Sure that was Vice and not me ?. I remember the other night it was between Urban and Shower and i placed alot of votes for Shower which automatically won the vote. Can't remember if you were in game or not. I always save my votes like many but recently i see no need because as soon as a popular map comes available, it wins the vote anyway. Theres only like 3-4 unpopular maps i would want to stack votes for. I have no problem with players stacking votes as i enjoy playing the maps people save for.

I think I've railed long enough on the issues surrounding accu-mode to the point where most of the relevant topics raised again today are ones I've already gone over in previous posts. Yes, it can introduce inequity (although it's an equal opportunity proposition), it's never been demonstrated to've actually served to promote less popular maps, but it usually becomes detrimental when high rollers vote late. The Pope is Catholic, bears shit in the woods, yada, yada, yada.
There is one other point of misconception I would like to clarify, however, which I've seen brought up (or alluded to) before and it always seemed odd to me. Democratic states and privately run servers offering free gaming services are fundamentally different governance practices: the administrator is not the community's elected representative, we do not own the server equally through tax paying and there's no charter a server's governors have to adhere to that establishes and guarantees anyone any rights or freedoms. While it does make sense for servers to gravitate toward practices that have democratic aspirations so that they can attract a bigger crowd and grow a community (also because most of us tend to believe in such principles), some aspects of running a server will not, and cannot, be expected to be carried out democratically. To draw parallels between democratic states and game servers, and use elements of the former as a pass/fail benchmark to base qualitative judgement on the latter on is a proposition as unpragmatic and fallacious as it is absurd. CEONSS is not a democracy, no matter how much it might like to be one. Judge the server for what it can be, not what it can't.

Equally curiously though,

Cheese_it! wrote:[...]So, we all had to play [MasterBath] this fucking crappy retarded kiddy map[...]

I'm sorry, it would seem your ISP must've undergone some bizarre technical difficulty just at the moment you were posting, where it managed to discard only the part of your message that must have (logically) contained all the facts and rational critique that lead to such a harsh n' damning verdict. I'm sure you wouldn't mind reposting it for clarification and constructive discourse's sake, of course .