littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
I'd suggest you disregard Seborga's vote and ask Shorts to rethink his, as it was placed to counter what he considered was against the rules/spirit of the game.
ZooChat Cup Match #52: Planckendael vs Zurich (4)
- Thread starter CGSwans
- Start date
I would strongly disagree with any retrospective action 're this or any of the other threads. Nobody did anything unfair or broke any existing competition rule imo. If players are unhappy then for future playoffs a rule requireing voters to have at least 5 or 10 posts could be applied.
But my preference is to leave well alone and continue as is.
It's the tactical voting that gives life to the game. I initially voted Zurich and then quite late, switched to the Zoo that was more familiar to me.
But my preference is to leave well alone and continue as is.
It's the tactical voting that gives life to the game. I initially voted Zurich and then quite late, switched to the Zoo that was more familiar to me.
To be honest, I wouldn't have voted on this one (except to right a perceived wrong) -having never been to either collection I was really struggling which to choose (basically I'd probably be equally happy to visit either). I presume this means you can totally disregard my vote and makes life a little easier for you.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
The rules have always had a very clear 'spirit' component which seems to have been violated here. It may well be that the best thing to do is to let this result stand, but that doesn't make this 'joining to vote' behaviour any less uncomfortable.
I think it's as simple as this, Zurich has lost, regardless of ' Seborgagate'!
littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
Doesn't really matter. If his vote is removed, then Shorts' vote is too as it was placed to counter Seborga's and the result remains the same.
I should say, this is the first thread i've visited that involved two zoos I have not visited. Rather exciting
I should say, this is the first thread i've visited that involved two zoos I have not visited. Rather exciting
Your right, I forgot about the Shorts counter vote.
Still, this could happen later on in the competition ( its already happened twice), and in my opinion that’s what should be done.
I partially agree, but also partially don't. Yes, it is weird to just join and vote for a zoo and it feels a little distasteful, but at the same time explaining your vote was never necessary, and a lot of members who voted for either option in this poll never gave any explanation behind their vote. A bit weird that only he would have to defend his opinion just because he's a new member, whereas other members wouldn't..
I agree that my original post comes off a a tad rude, but that was definitely not the intention! It’s not because they’re a new member, everyone’s a new member at some point.
However, I think a post here from Seborga would be nice, as it shows everyone that they’re not here just to vote for Planckendael and then never go on Zoochat again. Also, I’d love to read Seborgas opinion, as I bet they’re quite knowledgeable about their local zoo.
To be honest, for a moderator I find this a rather disappointing position.
Is there a rule which prevents new members from voting?Or perhaps there's also one to prevent, let's say members-with-less-than-250-messages, in which case I sincerely apologise for taking part of this competition.
Seborga probably read about this competition on the Belgian forum and therefore become a member. Isn't that one of the purposes of any thread in this excellent community: attracking new members who are devoted to zoos? And yes, as Vision already mentioned, he is a very active member on Laafse Kikkers, and yes he likes Planckendael a lot. So what? This game is about miscellaneous mammals: any vote on Planckendael in this category should hold as fake, false, against the rules nor the spirit of this game.
My conclusion: a very tide race, with a somewhat surprising winner, in a thread with excellent discussions on the reasons people making their vote, but with a disappointing final.
And I don't understand how people know someone else's vote.
Yes, but a member joining with the bare minimum profile information, saying nothing, seemingly only to vote in a poll for their favourite zoo doesn't really add much to the forum.
Whilst not forgetting the whole purpose of these cup threads is to encourage interesting debate (which it has brilliantly) and shouldn't be took too seriously (it's hardly Brexit) as with any poll there's always the danger of partisanship distorting what might be regarded as a fair result. Whilst it's frustrating enough, though fairly minimal, with existing members it's particularly galling when it seems someone's joined the forum to vote for their favourite zoo and little else. As someone said, it feels against the spirit of the competition.
Even if seborga’s and Shorts’ votes are removed, Zurich will still have lost to Planckendael by one vote....so Zurich has indeed lost regardless of what may happen now.
This is the closest match so far.
This is the closest match so far.
This is something I 100% agree with. Even without the late controversy ( or Seborgagate as you interestingly put it), this was a lively debate with good points presented by both sides. Easily the most interesting debate of the round, and I think only Burgers vs Wroclaw can top it in terms of the whole competition.
I quote myself because I can't change it anymore but: 'any vote on Planckendael' should be ofcourse 'no vote on Planckendael'.
It's easily done, just click on the results for each option and it gives you a list of people who voted for that.
And hence why I was clarifying Shorts' vote: it makes the result unambiguous whatever policy might have been applied.
The result stands. But please remember, everybody - members and non-members alike - this is only a game. I certainly didn't anticipate having to make these sort of judgments when I was designing it.