Debates, proposals, complaints, (dis)agreement with moderator's decisions

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I don't think there is a problem with active survivors being on two pages, but I would suggest in the future limiting "mega-survivors," such as the current Latin American History and Hitler's Helper Survivors, to one active at a time. These two combined currently take up nearly half of the first page. I would also suggest putting a reasonable limit on the number of threads in a "mega-survivor"- five sounds like a good number. Doing this would allow more active survivors on the first (and second) pages.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Seriously, if you're going to rig Survivor results, don't even bother hosting. Go into the appropriate forum and start a thread about how Vatican City/George H. W. Bush/Reagan-Bush is the greatest European Country/Vice-President/Republican Presidential Ticket ever, and stop wasting everyone's time and energy.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

It's a shame, really. His survivors were rather interesting and were well managed until he started cheating and throwing a hissy fit.

"WAAAH! My favorite candidate lost! I don't wanna play anymore!" Real mature...

But that's enough trolling. I have more important things to do.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Popes of Rome is up to you to resume or to restart completely.

Recommendation: Whether you resume it or restart it, don't make it single elimination (like it was before). It'll take forever.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I have to modify my comment:
Wormyguy (not surprisingly...) was the one who launched this new trend.
Sewer "just" made it even worse and added changes of votes after other forumers have voted.

Among trollers, I was wrong .
Sorry for this, dear Sewer .

Let's give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to Pompeus what belongs to Pompeus .

I don't have a problem with people changing votes. I myself have cast votes late in rounds so that I can see the current standings before I cast my vote, and I know others have done the same. This gives late voters a huge advantage, effectively allowing them to single-handedly decide the round in many cases. Allowing people to change their votes nullifies this advantage by giving the same opportunity to people who voted earlier.

The problem is that there is no limit in changing and someone can change after others change... And when you cast your vote, you like to think it's the good one.
Changing and voting late aren't the same thiongs at all.

And when you're among the first to vote, you have the advantage of setting a trend and forcing the others (especially when the turnout is low) to vote for your pick or for the only other one available...

Every manager is free to set his rules, of course.
I was just saying that changing while it's not very usual among other voters isn't fair.
But, of course, every thing which is not forbidden is allowed !

I haven't set many rules when this board opened and that's a good thing.
And when many wanted new rules, strict rules, I was very moderate, as I knew we would have been bothered by the very rules we'd set because of partisan hacking and trollers.
I was right.
Better complete rules step by step and with circonspection .
And let managers free !!

So many debates on what remains a time-killing game !

I moved this discussion into the debate thread so as not to hijack the other threads.

In many ways you are right, which is why I haven't brought this issue up until now. I realize that there are problems with allowing people to change votes, but I still think it is the only way to nullify the advantage held by late voters. I've thought about other rules that could nullify that advantage, but I rejected all of them as unfair, especially since people who can't be online at any given moment might not have a choice but to vote late. I will continue to allow voters in my survivors to change their votes, unless that priviledge starts being abused.

In my opinion, a manager that abuses his powers is worse than a player who abuses his powers. I take great pride in being a fair manager of my survivors. To that end, I try to make sure that everyone is familiar with the rules in my survivors from the moment Round 1 opens, even going so far as to explain the rules of each individual round from the very beginning. It's also why I don't vote in survivors that I manage- I want to avoid the appearance of partiality. If I notice that someone hasn't voted properly, I let them know and give them time to change their vote to a proper one, even if I was about to close the round.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130219.0

So that every regular user of this sub-board is well informed, here is the link to a thread entitled "Moderator abuse by Big Bad Fab" (sic).

I made the following post in the above thread. I am copying it here to ensure that my view is known to the survivor community, in case they don't read the above thread.

I think that the allowing of film survivors has sent us down this slippery slope- it has blurred the line between what is allowed and what isn't. I think Fab has been too much of a "moderate hero" on this issue. It's debatable as to whether some of the survivors that have been allowed (the film ones in particular) fall into the category of "Election and History Games" (I fall onto the side of "no"). To settle the debate once and for all, I think he needs to take either a hardline stance (banning all survivors that don't have a clear political or historical content, or a libertarian one (anything goes), instead of making arbitrary decisions that some would consider questionable.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Alright, I have another idea, then. I support opening this board to every possible subject, with the caveat that the main focus should be on politics and history. I suggest a limit of three "off-topic" survivors at any given time ("off-topic" being defined at the discretion of the moderator), to ensure that we don't get inundated with them. Any more "off-topic" survivors would have to wait until one of the current three are finished. If there are many suggestions at once, the moderator would maintain a waiting list so that the subjects are dealt with in the order they were received.

This solution would allow other subjects to be dealt with, without the threat of having the board overrun with everything from music to video games.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Current survivors on signatures, even of US presidents, will be "off-topic" (unless a massive crowd opens fire at me on this example ).

I'd consider opening fire, but I should probably delete mine anyway since nobody's freaking playing it!

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I really think that this solution is the best compromise between the two extremes. Also, bear in mind that the limit on "off-topic" survivors can be adjusted at a later date if it is deemed necessary.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Notice: My Signatures of Treasurers of the United States Survivor was deleted due to lack of interest.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Minor complaint: I would argue that Spanish and Portuguese navigators and conquistadores should be a on-topic survivor. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I think the new rules are a perfectly reasonable compromise.

I'll shortly start a new 'parliaments' survivor, possibly for southern Africa; would that be 'on-topic'? I suspect it would be, but just checking.

Also, Navigators and Conquistadors is historically related to politics but our current opinions of them are not overly political. I'd probably accept it as on-topic but I could understand it not being considered as such. I also think the turnout will probably be very, very low.

Well, my argument is that it's not just politcal games that should be on-topic, but historical ones as well. After all, the parent board is called "Election and History Games." While navigators and Conquistadors may not have political significance in modern times, you cannot deny their historical significance.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I don't know if this counts as non-political, but I'd like to do a largest cities in every state survivor.

(You know, Birmingham, Anchorage, Phoenix, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Denver, etc.)

That was done already. New York City won.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I'd vote in that.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Can I make a survivor for the Governors of New Jersey?

As a New Jerseyan, I would vote in it.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Ok, so (cheese sauce) I was looking up what region exactly is concidered "The South" and thought it might be fun to do a States by Census Bureau Division Survivor. It'll be like fab's "Presidents by Military Rank" in that all the states will be split, and the top state of each division goes on to the final grouping. Has it been done? Is anyone interested? Or are the divisions too small (Mid-Atlantic only has 3 states) and I should do by regions(Pacific-Mountian-South-Northwest)? In that case it'll be more than just the top of each region, but the point is:

has it been done? Is anyone interested?

I'd vote in this.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Or you could incorporate the smaller subdivisions into neighboring larger ones.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Or you could incorporate the smaller subdivisions into neighboring larger ones.

You mean just do the main four or combine some of the subdivisions? (For example, New England and Mid Atlantic or West South and East South)

You could do either. If you'd rather have more groups, but not have some groups be so small as to only include three states, you could (for instance) combine Mid Atlantic with New England. Ultimately, though, it's your call.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I just want to complain about the fact that this board is dead. That's all.