TF Lead Indicators

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:28 am

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Jun 7 2009, 06:08 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.

I'm not sure it's the core's place to compensate for people's suckyness.

+ since when did "aim for the lead indicator" become the advice to give to sucky people instead of "watch where your bullets are actually landing".
Hey, perhaps forcing these noobs to actually aim will make them better? 0.o

QUOTE if you are so sure of the outcome, then why not vote it again?[/quote]
Because that would annoy people, and we would have a whole load of people coming to the forums with "why have I been polled twice?" "asgs is broken, it keeps polling me", and people will choose ignore because they have already voted. It's like boy who cried wolf

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jun 7 2009, 08:35 AM) However, had I been asked, I would've made the question "should TF enhanced/advanced ships have lead indicators?"

"So if I vote no, then they can never ever have them?"

We should probably discuss public ASGS polls beforehand to choose a unambiguous wording...

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:04 am

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Jun 7 2009, 11:28 AM) We should probably discuss public ASGS polls beforehand to choose a unambiguous wording...

That's like an excellent idea. We could have a forum poll on the wording for the asgs poll

Icky · Post by **Icky** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:18 pm

If we start polling about polls then people will think Striker is on the CC dev team...

Buyo · Post by **Buyo** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:28 pm

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:37 pm

This doesn't change a thing, I still whore everyone in this thread combined.

NOW EVERYONE CHANNEL YOUR POWER INTO MY SPIRIT BOMB SO I MAY DESTROY BROODWICH

Adam4 · Post by **Adam4** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:27 pm

I just re-checked the poll, as it still had a few days left to run. Majority swings the Remove them way.

The poll expires today, and the result makes no difference:

As it stands finally:

Yes: 322 (62% of Y/N)
No: 197 (38% of Y/N)
Do not ask again: 170

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:03 pm

For the sake of saving problems, I'm going to drop this one, but for the love of god, next time post a thread on the wording, so we can work out issues like this

"do you support killing babies" instead of "do you support abortion" wording is VERY IMPORTANT!

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:25 pm

Any brain dead person who misinterpreted this deserves to lose their lead indicator.

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:25 pm

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Jun 7 2009, 07:03 PM) For the sake of saving problems, I'm going to drop this one, but for the love of god, next time post a thread on the wording, so we can work out issues like this

"do you support killing babies" instead of "do you support abortion" wording is VERY IMPORTANT!

Actually, that's a different issue to the one in this thread.

Your example is where the question is un-impartial i.e. it is suggesting the answer you should vote for.
An example of that in this case would be "Should TF be made better by changing their lead indicators to be like the other un-broken factions?"

Here the case is ambigous wording, where it is unclear whether yes or no means you are agreeing with the change or not. - So you get people voting no who want it changed as well as people correctly voting yes.

Buyo · Post by **Buyo** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:28 pm

POLLS ABOUT POLLS WORDING, '4 '4 '4