31 Aug '06 02:41>4 edits
We have just been asked to vote:
"Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)."
The PM says our vote is requested and would be very much appreciated.
There are only two choices. Yes and No.
People vote "No" if they would be unhappy. They vote "Yes" if they are happy. Chances are a great many people are happy (regardless of the issue). Outcome "Yes"
If a pollster or market researcher asked loaded questions like this they would be fired on the spot.
So another vote at another time that asked this question:
"Would you be happy if players were not immune from timeout while on vacation?" and it was requested in the same manner, under the same conditions, with the same "Yes" & "No" choices would also have a "Yes" outcome. Yes, on the whole the subscribers would be happy.
Subscribers should not have been asked to vote about their happiness.
Happiness is not the issue! They should have been asked a question about vacation timeouts. For example,
"Should a player be immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)" with the options: Yes, No (The current situation), Not sure, Don't care.
They could also have been directed to threads where this issue has been debated over and over again.
Even better we could have had some alternative choices, "timeouts and the vacation period only", "Timeouts and timebanks (the current situation)", "Timeouts and a timebank top-up system" or "Timeouts plus timebanks plus a vacation period". (Right now we are being forced into the last choice only).
Look at the other vote. People will vote for the status quo. Even if "No" had been suffixed with "(The current situation)" as in the other vote it would have received many, many more votes.
This vote and its outcome is a sad, sorry, meaningless farce.
My "site idea" is that it be declared null and void.
"Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)."
The PM says our vote is requested and would be very much appreciated.
There are only two choices. Yes and No.
People vote "No" if they would be unhappy. They vote "Yes" if they are happy. Chances are a great many people are happy (regardless of the issue). Outcome "Yes"
If a pollster or market researcher asked loaded questions like this they would be fired on the spot.
So another vote at another time that asked this question:
"Would you be happy if players were not immune from timeout while on vacation?" and it was requested in the same manner, under the same conditions, with the same "Yes" & "No" choices would also have a "Yes" outcome. Yes, on the whole the subscribers would be happy.
Subscribers should not have been asked to vote about their happiness.
Happiness is not the issue! They should have been asked a question about vacation timeouts. For example,
"Should a player be immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)" with the options: Yes, No (The current situation), Not sure, Don't care.
They could also have been directed to threads where this issue has been debated over and over again.
Even better we could have had some alternative choices, "timeouts and the vacation period only", "Timeouts and timebanks (the current situation)", "Timeouts and a timebank top-up system" or "Timeouts plus timebanks plus a vacation period". (Right now we are being forced into the last choice only).
Look at the other vote. People will vote for the status quo. Even if "No" had been suffixed with "(The current situation)" as in the other vote it would have received many, many more votes.
This vote and its outcome is a sad, sorry, meaningless farce.
My "site idea" is that it be declared null and void.