Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Naw wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.

That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;

Say what? From the quote provided by you below:

And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet

How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.

Please don't try and act as if it's even possible that it was fixed

The part where you have to provide your ITC ranking was not a required field.

Tautastic wrote:
The part where you have to provide your ITC ranking was not a required field.

However it's possible they only counted those votes. Regardless they aren't new to this voting. The results should hopefully stand true

"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

 _ghost_ wrote:
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not

They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.

Pain4Pleasure:

Generaly what is more important for you?
1A fair vote with a result that is true?
2The result you desire no matter how its achived?

It seems 2. is the one to go for you. Thats a pity.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Pain4Pleasure:

Generaly what is more important for you?
1A fair vote with a result that is true?
2The result you desire no matter how its achived?

It seems 2. is the one to go for you. Thats a pity.

So if reecius comes out saying the votes are good n decision stands are you going to be ok with that

And dozer blades you're exalted

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not

That it potentially was manipulated by someone, yes it is possible. Do I actually care? Nope, I don't have anything invested in this. Do I think this should be a popularity vote? Definitely not.

I hope they review the voting mechanism and eliminate any chance of manipulation in the future because stuff like this potentially invalidates any future votes on anything.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not

If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.

Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.

 redthirst wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not

If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.

Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.

Off topic, 9 riptides isn't a great tactical choice. On topic, if reecius can't find proof that it did happen, and this guy saying he did it isn't proof, then there is no reason for a revote. Only, and only if, he finds absolute proof, not like meh could be, should it be redone.

So is this what we've come to? Taking an anonymous comment on 4chan as the truth? If 4chan told me the sky was blue, I'd look out my window to double-check.

Crimson Devil wrote:They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.

Exalted!

"My name is Prince Reecius. I have a system of Warhammer 40k FAQs and balance changes for you, so long as you send me your banking information."

_ghost_ wrote:"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Exactly. Everyone and their brother could have voted, but only the people wiht an ITC number cast the votes that were counted.

Remember, the ITC represents the interests of its members, not the global 40k playerbase.

redthirst wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not

If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.

Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.

Not in the ITC you can't!

 TheNewBlood wrote:
So is this what we've come to? Taking an anonymous comment on 4chan as the truth? If 4chan told me the sky was blue, I'd look out my window to double-check.

Crimson Devil wrote:They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.

Exalted!

"My name is Prince Reecius. I have a system of Warhammer 40k FAQs and balance changes for you, so long as you send me your banking information."

_ghost_ wrote:"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Exactly. Everyone and their brother could have voted, but only the people wiht an ITC number cast the votes that were counted.

Remember, the ITC represents the interests of its members, not the global 40k playerbase.

redthirst wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"

people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank

Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not

If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.

Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.

Not in the ITC you can't!

Also exalted!

Pain4Pleasure wrote:


Off topic, 9 riptides isn't a great tactical choice.

Sure it'd be fun and rage-inducing, though.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Not in the ITC you can't!

Can't play Riptide Wing in the ITC?

What's the purpose of this topic?

Were we supposed to be under the impression there wouldn't be vote stuffing in the first place? Or perhaps we were supposed to believe it's not possible to combat such blatant practices? Are we supposed to think the total counted votes (somewhere around a paltry thousand) also includes block votes numbering somethting like 50 or 100?

Oh wait, I know, I'm supposed to believe no one would post something like that on an anonymous consequence-free message board with no registry requirements and a culture that promotes trolling unless it was true?

Come on guys, it's just a lazy troll trying to kick up salt.

Pretty much exactly as captain joystick said, a claim on 4chan is worth nothing without proof. I could easily go there and claim I did the same thing in favor of the Tau.

The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

 Yarium wrote:

 redthirst wrote:


Seems pretty clear that the only barrier for voting is the voter's word that they might play in an ITC event some day or that they don't, but still may use the guidelines.

Yeah, I'm not sure how they did that, because like I said you had to provide your ITC rank during the poll, so I'm not sure how "plan on doing so in the near future" factored into that. I'm trusting the ITC that their system was meant to handle abuses like this.

*Sigh* reecius specifically said in the comments of the poll that ITC ranking was NOT REQUIRED for this vote. the wanted it to merely have more data to so if the vote would be different for ranked people vs non ranked people.

Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

 _ghost_ wrote:
The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof

 Captain Joystick wrote:
What's the purpose of this topic?

Were we supposed to be under the impression there wouldn't be vote stuffing in the first place? Or perhaps we were supposed to believe it's not possible to combat such blatant practices? Are we supposed to think the total counted votes (somewhere around a paltry thousand) also includes block votes numbering somethting like 50 or 100?

Oh wait, I know, I'm supposed to believe no one would post something like that on an anonymous consequence-free message board with no registry requirements and a culture that promotes trolling unless it was true?

Come on guys, it's just a lazy troll trying to kick up salt.

Maybe. but I have been all over warseer, this site, and bolterandchainsword for the past few weeks and the vast majority of people all agreed on the ruling of CFP. No way were there more than 50% of people disagreeing with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

Says the guy living in America

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof

Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural

 _ghost_ wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof

Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural

You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?

Tautastic wrote:
I do believe if you make a new email under a different name that it could potentially go through. The only way I can think of that would prevent that is if they can link their vote to an IP address. Even then just use a different computer with the new email. So it is not outside the possibilities that this happened.

Is 50% win rate really that great? If anything that just means you are in the middle of the pack.

50% is balanced given equal skill, but they had above 55% depending on which factors you considered going all the way up to 60%+. Thats grossly overpowered levels of win rate.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

Says the guy living in America

i.e., the voice of experience

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof

Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural

You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?

Oh realy? so tell me how he can call several names out. even if the ones given are made-up ones... how could he guessed them? thats all you need to know. Btw. i understand english much better than i am able to write it. so dont come up with that stuff. ist alwasy a sign of weakness if someone tries to blame the person behind a argument. instead of contering that one. a tactic you use very often.

I am curious, how did SM/Eldar/Necrons do?

Keeping in mind that as I ask this, I'm not an ITC member and I have no ITC ranking;

Is it possible to reformulate the poll answers using the ITC rankings as a multiplier of the ITC ranked player's votes? meaning a person's ranking like mine (zero points) would be zero votes and a person with many points would be the same number of votes?

Manchu wrote:Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

Principal rules design? Awful idea. Secondary rules design? i.e. clarification and FAQs? Pretty good idea, I think. Better than one or two TOs making house rules and pretending their own biases aren't entering the equation. (Genuine answer, BTW.)

Crimson Devil wrote:They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.

I laughed too hard at this.

Fact of the matter is, votes probably won't be taken back and redone. I see it as it could be an attempt from a tau player to create what's happening right now in this thread in an attempt to get a revote hoping for a better outcome for the tau. Due to this, it should be left alone.