The second Will of the Collective led to a unique equipment, designed entirely by the community!

Which concept should be developed into the next WotC card?

Concept #1: Missions Galore!
3
4%
Concept #2: By Any Other Name...
3
4%
Concept #3: An Ostracize of Our Own
3
4%
Concept #4: Iconic
4
6%
Concept #5: The First Lady
26
39%
Concept #6: Temporal Babies
1
1%
Concept #7: The "B" Side
27
40%
User avatar
 
By shagg08 (Michael O'Shogay)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#37084
Danny wrote:
wweist wrote:I am totally against this idea, Chad
Seconded. If people had wanted something else to win, they would've voted differently. Why make everyone go through another round of voting? Members of the Community (who wanted to) have spoken!
I third this. I agree whole-heartedly.
User avatar
 
By wweist
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#37128
Foreman wrote:
Danny wrote:
wweist wrote:I am totally against this idea, Chad
Seconded. If people had wanted something else to win, they would've voted differently. Why make everyone go through another round of voting? Members of the Community (who wanted to) have spoken!
It might make a difference to the 14 people who votd for one of the less popular options. They might have prefered a different option, but now that they know it isn't gonna happen, they can vote for the lesser of the two evils.
Some people might disapprove of one so much that they will not work on it at all, but would be willing to help with the other. So in order to get the most participation in the card creation I thought it would make sense to have a runoff vote.
So far two people have agreed with a run-off vote, and two are against it. Maybe we should have a vote to see if there is a run-off vote :P . (Just kidding.) I'm sure if there is not a runoff vote it won't make a big difference in particpants (maybe one or two) so maybe it's not worth the effort. It was just a suggestion the commitee can decide what it wants to do.
If they had wanted to choose between the "lesser of two evils" then they would have switched their vote when it looked like their first choice was not going to win. (as I had to...) The vote was fair, NO RECOUNT!
User avatar
First Edition Art Manager
By jjh (Johnny Holeva)
 - First Edition Art Manager
 -  
#37130
Linkan wrote:In WoTC I we had a couple of run off votes, and I think we should have it this time too.
Agreed. The numbers warrant a final vote between the two most popular choices.
User avatar
 
By charlie
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#37135
I agree that there should be a run-off. However, I am not sure how much work would be needed to design a card for Majel.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#37151
jjh wrote:
Linkan wrote:In WoTC I we had a couple of run off votes, and I think we should have it this time too.
Agreed. The numbers warrant a final vote between the two most popular choices.

If everytime a democratic process had a re-vote following a close vote, nothing would ever get accomplished. Why have a vote if it's not final? People had the ability to change their vote this time. If they wanted to, we should assume they did. Let this vote stand and lets move on.

God knows I desperately wanted a re-vote November of 2000. :-(
User avatar
First Edition Art Manager
By jjh (Johnny Holeva)
 - First Edition Art Manager
 -  
#37158
Hoss-Drone wrote:If everytime a democratic process had a re-vote following a close vote, nothing would ever get accomplished. Why have a vote if it's not final?
Perhaps I wasn't clear Kevin. I'm not calling for a re-vote "everytime".

There is a voting model that utilizes Primaries to narrow down to the best candidates. Then you have a general election. It's used to select the United States of America. And yes, they do take some time.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#37180
jjh wrote:
Hoss-Drone wrote:If everytime a democratic process had a re-vote following a close vote, nothing would ever get accomplished. Why have a vote if it's not final?
Perhaps I wasn't clear Kevin. I'm not calling for a re-vote "everytime".

There is a voting model that utilizes Primaries to narrow down to the best candidates. Then you have a general election. It's used to select the United States of America. And yes, they do take some time.
There's also the model used in Louisiana and Georgia, as well as a number of countries (whose names escape me at the moment): runoff voting. If no candidate attains a majority of votes in the initial vote, a runoff between the top two candidates is held to determine the winner.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a runoff vote, especially when the initial choice was between seven options and the margin between the top two one vote.
User avatar
 
By wweist
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#37274
nobthehobbit wrote:
jjh wrote:
Hoss-Drone wrote:If everytime a democratic process had a re-vote following a close vote, nothing would ever get accomplished. Why have a vote if it's not final?
Perhaps I wasn't clear Kevin. I'm not calling for a re-vote "everytime".

There is a voting model that utilizes Primaries to narrow down to the best candidates. Then you have a general election. It's used to select the United States of America. And yes, they do take some time.
There's also the model used in Louisiana and Georgia, as well as a number of countries (whose names escape me at the moment): runoff voting. If no candidate attains a majority of votes in the initial vote, a runoff between the top two candidates is held to determine the winner.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a runoff vote, especially when the initial choice was between seven options and the margin between the top two one vote.
I would agree if the casted votes were final and irreversible. However, in this case, the "primary" was held within the time span of the voting.

Initial votes were cast and the spread was presented, then

voters were allowed to change their vote according to which of the two top runners they wished to throw their support behind.

I, personally, would have liked to work on #4 (for which I initially voted), but given the way the voting had gone, I changed my vote to reflect which of the two top runners I would rather work on.

I would rather we stick to this method of dynamic/volatile voting and avoid "runoffs"
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#37301
I'm also against a runoff. A difference of one vote may seem small but everybody knew when the vote would end, and all who did not vote for one of the more popular choices could have changed their votes in time. All those who only now feel unsatisfied with the vote should blame themselves and not actively try to change or delay the democratic process so they have another chance to mess it up 8)
User avatar
North American OP Coordinator
By The Ninja Scot (Michael Van Breemen)
 - North American OP Coordinator
 -  
1E World Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E World Champion 2023
Tribbles World Champion 2022
The Traveler
1E North American Continental Champion 2023
2E North American Continental Champion 2023
  Trek Masters 1E Champion 2024
1E American National Champion 2023
1E Canadian National Champion 2023
2E Canadian National Champion 2023
2E  National Runner-Up 2023
2E American National Second Runner-Up 2023
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
2E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2023
#37303
Me, I voted for one of the non-popular options (which isn't all that surprising to me) but I didn't change my vote for the sheer reason that, out of the two popular options, I wouldn't care which one was made and it wouldn't have changed that I wanted something different. That's not to say that I wouldn't mind if either of them were made but out of those two, I wouldn't care which option it ends up being.

:twocents:

Michael,
practitioner of stream of consciousness ramblings that's on this side of sanity... sometimes
 
By Foreman
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
#37383
Jaybird wrote:I am kind of curious... are the only people who want a revote the people who voted for Concept #5? Or are there some out there who were unaware/didn't have time to change their vote before the deadline?
I voted for concept 4 actually, and the reason I didn't change my vote is that this idea of being able to change your vote when you see your 1st choice isn't going to win is a bad idea. It makes the people who vote first have the most say in what will win. For all we know, the people who voted for concept 2 had all voted first, this would have been a race between concept 2 and 7 or 2 and 5.

Thats why I support people voting for their favorite and then havinga runoff vote. I realise that it takes more time, but the polls have been closed for a while now and we could be doing the run-off vote right now.


Oops, I posted this and then saw the runoff vote was being done now.

Is it now that we talk about the dream card forum?[…]

German Nationals 2024 (1E)

Done. Your complete decklist. Can't have your […]

Unser Turnier in Köln gestern war ebenfalls[…]

Online CM RELEASE TOURNAMENT

Hello, Here are the 2nd round pairings, courtesy […]