TF Lead Indicators

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:47 pm

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Jun 6 2009, 09:38 PM) What was the exact wording for the question? because when I saw it, I recall it being rather confusing as to which vote was which.

Can we please get a re-count on this with a better worded question? I think that there was some serious bias in the way it was put forward

Q: Should TF lead indicators be set to normal? (only carriers/assault ships relay them)

Yes respondents: 243 (Of Y/N: 59.1%)
No respondents: 168 (Of Y/N: 40.9%)
Do not ask again: 124
Total Y/N: 411
Total: 535

***

Only people who live in Florida and vote for Pat Buchanan can get confused over that. It's clear as glass.

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:15 pm

psyc is the one who said he didnt need it and now hes whining that he lost. contradiction?

Post by **pkk** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:26 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jun 6 2009, 08:47 PM) Only people who live in Florida and vote for Pat Buchanan can get confused over that. It's clear as glass.

They didn't read the the small print...

Q: Should TF lead indicators be set to normal? (only carriers/assault ships relay them)

Buyo · Post by **Buyo** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:40 pm

Except there was no small print, it was the same font size.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:57 pm

Due to an obscure legal implication of an old Florida Supreme Court decision, a certain percentage of all ASGS votes actually count for George W. Bush, regardless of the wording of the question.

RoboTel · Post by **RoboTel** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:57 pm

Honestly, I almost voted backwards on the question myself, so it is a fair complaint. I can imagine alot of newbies doing even worse than me.

That said, as long as there is a fix planned, I don't really see a problem with it.

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:08 am

I don't argue for my sake, i consider it a balance issue for the many voobs who can't aim, I honestly think that the question is mildly confusing for newbs, and needs to be re-worded and re-voted.

if you are so sure of the outcome, then why not vote it again?

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:39 am

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Jun 7 2009, 01:08 AM) I don't argue for my sake, i consider it a balance issue for the many voobs who can't aim, I honestly think that the question is mildly confusing for newbs, and needs to be re-worded and re-voted.

If they were so confused and really cared they could come to the forums - ask a question - then vote later. Or you know they could just abstain.

The vote stands

Post by **zombywoof** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:35 am

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jun 6 2009, 11:47 AM) Q: Should TF lead indicators be set to normal?

If this was the question I would've demanded a revote myself. What is normal? Normal for TF, or other factions? But the addendum of the (only carriers/assault ships relay them) really means that everyone who knows what we're talking about can vote properly.

However, had I been asked, I would've made the question "should TF enhanced/advanced ships have lead indicators?"

Either way, Spidey's spoken, so the vote stands. The question was a bit muddled, but it wasn't too difficult for anyone who was actually thinking to figure it out.

TurkeyXIII · Post by **TurkeyXIII** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:47 am

I read it twice to understand it. First glance I saw 'TF' and 'lead' and thought 'yes'. Still, if you answer a question after reading only 2 words perhaps you're not that opinionated in the first place?