Boards.ie Voting History Discussion

ctrl-alt-delete

Trying to keep the other thread just for posting the actual vote outcomes and such.

Obviously we can discuss each individual vote on each vote thread in future as we have done so far.

I am of the opinion we are having too many votes :pac:

For instance we have voted on the Login rule twice now, with the outcome on both occasions being to reduce it to 21 days, yet we still have another thread and vote going on it again that has not expired yet.

Anyways, with Mac only being able to change 2 rules once a season we can discuss what should take priority here for next season and also how we feel the current changes have affected the game.

What does everyone or anyone think?

tommycahir

Any chance you can have a status for each rule in the other thread along the lines of

Status : Implemented \ On backlog for implementation

Just that it is somewhat confusing when reading the current status when there are multiple entries on the same rule eg the login timeframe..

Also would be useful if there was a simple table showing the status of each one.

ctrl-alt-delete

tommycahir wrote: »

Any chance you can have a status for each rule in the other thread along the lines of

Status : Implemented \ On backlog for implementation

Just that it is somewhat confusing when reading the current status when there are multiple entries on the same rule eg the login timeframe..

Also would be useful if there was a simple table showing the status of each one.

There is a status in the other thread showing as best I can what has been the outcome, but it is confusing because it has been confusing.

I started it to try and highlight how many times we have voted so far and to try and get a discussion going on what needs to be voted on and how we decide which votes do get acted upon.

The login one is extremely confusing, and for me the current vote is pointless because we have a 21 day vote passed on backlog.

It was not implemented because Mac could only change two which ended up being the SMFA monitoring and the buying from unmanaged option.

I just don't like the idea of polls going up and time being wasted when we don't know if they can ever be acted upon especially when some changes have been under the headings of trials.

Hence we need to discuss how the current changes have gone?, are we going to want to change the trial one back?, how many does that leave free to change come the end of this season?, have we any left to change as a result of that ?and if so what one do we change? and even what version of the login one would we go with?

It is very confusing at the moment!

KERSPLAT!

Well the most recent login one wasn't for a change but to see how people feel about it, that's all

GT_TDI_150

Brilliant work.

Might be worth linking this in your opening post in the 'log' topic and getting the 'log' topic sticky_fied?

hufpc8w3adnk65

Stop me if I'm wrong lads


Was it 21 days we voted too have the log in changed too (so lads going on 2 weeks holidays without golf membership wouldn't be removed?


also transfer monitoring will remain off for all of next season after the cock up at the start of this one.


No squad caps (impossible too implement now)

1 club change a season per manager

If your taking a leave of absence from the game for any reason ( no need too tell anyone why ) but just pop up a post here or on sm saying you've shït too do and will be back soon as you can.



Buying from unmanaged clubs too remain off next season as it did work straight away either due too in game glitch



As allways this isn't gospel, it's our game We all will decide

ctrl-alt-delete

MrMac84 wrote: »

Stop me if I'm wrong lads


Was it 21 days we voted too have the log in changed too (so lads going on 2 weeks holidays without golf membership wouldn't be removed?


also transfer monitoring will remain off for all of next season after the cock up at the start of this one.


No squad caps (impossible too implement now)

1 club change a season per manager

If your taking a leave of absence from the game for any reason ( no need too tell anyone why ) but just pop up a post here or on sm saying you've shït too do and will be back soon as you can.



Buying from unmanaged clubs too remain off next season as it did work straight away either due too in game glitch



As allways this isn't gospel, it's our game We all will decide

Yeah 21 days was the vote outcome for the login.

With monitoring and buying from unmanaged remaining unchanged that leaves one option open for possible change, but that is not to say anything needs to be changed.

Can I ask Mac is the minimum post and registration time that was voted on a rule now? We just need an official line on it.

hufpc8w3adnk65

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Yeah 21 days was the vote outcome for the login.

With monitoring and buying from unmanaged remaining unchanged that leaves one option open for possible change, but that is not to say anything needs to be changed.

Can I ask Mac is the minimum post and registration time that was voted on a rule now? We just need an official line on it.

As in the minimum amount of posts on boards?

ctrl-alt-delete

MrMac84 wrote: »

As in the minimum amount of posts on boards?

Yeah the vote ended in favour of new managers having to be registered on boards for min of a month and have a min of 50 posts.

Just wondering if it is a rule now?

KERSPLAT!

Sounds good, should act as a deterrent for people multi accounting

hufpc8w3adnk65

Can I ask lads do they think that there is multi accounts in our world? Also would this not deter people from joining in the first place? Also just so ye know any new members too boards who "find" our thread I have a mod or admin do a ip scan of the new person and all existing players too see if there is a match

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

Can I ask lads do they think that there is multi accounts in our world? Also would this not deter people from joining in the first place? Also just so ye know any new members too boards who "find" our thread I have a mod or admin do a ip scan of the new person and all existing players too see if there is a match

Yes

hufpc8w3adnk65

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Yes

Yes what?

KERSPLAT!

Do I think there is multi accounting, yes I do.

hufpc8w3adnk65

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Do I think there is multi accounting, yes I do.

Have you asked a mod too look into it or reported it on sm?

GT_TDI_150

Seaneh wrote: »

I think it's a sad indication of the short sightedness of some of the game world players that there have been some brilliant examples of why monitoring needs to be on and so few people have bothered to vote, and even sadder that of those who have voted, 13 have voted to leave it off.

I consciously haven't voted yet ...

I voted to leave it on last time round ...

I'll vote in due time ... or I may not ...

Seaneh

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I consciously haven't voted yet ...

I voted to leave it on last time round ...

I'll vote in due time ... or I may not ...

I probably jumpped the gun timing wise as well, this early in the season it's kind of irrelevant as implementing it would be so far away.

PerrinV2

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I consciously haven't voted yet ...

I voted to leave it on last time round ...

I'll vote in due time ... or I may not ...

Same.
Deadline for the vote is the 28th,whats the rush?

Seaneh

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Same.
Deadline for the vote is the 28th,whats the rush?

I thought I could only make a poll 1 month long for some reason, totally my fault.

GT_TDI_150

I'll throw this out there ....

ANYONE THAT VOTED ALREADY BUT WANTS TO CHANGE add your detail below:

Name | initial vote | new vote
||

this should give an indication on whether this vote is a dud or people are happy with the vote cast even in light of examples give.

Al Capwned

Yaaay - a table in a poll thread.....
The perfect storm!

:pac:

KERSPLAT!

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I'll throw this out there ....

ANYONE THAT VOTED ALREADY BUT WANTS TO CHANGE add your detail below:

Name | initial vote | new vote
||

this should give an indication on whether this vote is a dud or people are happy with the vote cast even in light of examples give.

That's not really the point. I don't think there's any need for more messing about. If the vote stays as is, I'm happy to leave it off

pepper180

Allowed change your vote!!!

Dear mother of God...

KERSPLAT!

Still time for others to cast their votes. I wish Mac would have sent a GW PM about the two votes to get a better consensus of what people want

GT_TDI_150

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Still time for others to cast their votes. I wish Mac would have sent a GW PM about the two votes to get a better consensus of what people want

surely, with a boards league that wasalways meant to be for boards posters, a month is long enough for them to see the poll here if indeed they are posting / reading here.

KERSPLAT!

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

surely, with a boards league that wasalways meant to be for boards posters, a month is long enough for them to see the poll here if indeed they are posting / reading here.

And if they aren't posting here or reading? They're in the league either way so they should get a vote. I'm not saying this because I think the 'turn it on side will get more votes' it's more, like I said, to get a better consensus of what the people in the league want, not just what the people of boards want

Al Capwned

Obviously a lot different for other game worlds, but the rules of this GW specifically say

Only members of www.boards.ie can take over clubs here!

__

Personally, I think that as a stipulation of joining this league was that you had to be a member of boards, anyone that doesn't see these threads, and therefore doesn't vote is in hard luck....

KERSPLAT!

Then why are mails sent about manager positions? Sure if they posted here they'd see them?

It's OK for one agenda but not another?

As for your point on them being members, someone can be a member and not post or read the threads, they are still members of the GW

Al Capwned

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Then why are mails sent about manager positions? Sure if they posted here they'd see them?

It's OK for one agenda but not another?

As for your point on them being members, someone can be a member and not post or read the threads, they are still members of the GW

It's not an agenda. It's my opinion.

Yes, people can be members and not post or read, but if the main prohibiting factor preventing anyone from joining the GW in the first place is that they must be boards.ie members, and they had to post in the forum to gain access, surely those people can keep an eye in here too.

Actually I think that the main appeal of the game is the fact that this forum exists - I wouldn't play if it was solely on soccermanager.com.

Like i said, just my opinion, and you obviously have a different one. That's fine too.

Iago

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Then why are mails sent about manager positions? Sure if they posted here they'd see them?

It's OK for one agenda but not another?

As for your point on them being members, someone can be a member and not post or read the threads, they are still members of the GW

I do agree with this, although we're on opposing sides on the debate, the more managers who vote the better.

I do wonder if you would be quite so keen if the Yes vote was ahead though

Al Capwned

Just to add, I've no problems with the GW mails being sent by the way.
Everyone in the GW is entitled to a vote, and if it helps to get a better 'turnout', well that has to be a good thing.

My point still stands, though it's a boards.ie league, if people ignore this forum they will miss out. Take the sale of "The Ten" for example, or the Valencia auction - people that don't read or post on here wouldn't have known what was happening..

Blondie919

I haven't been on Boards for a couple of weeks due to getting work which has me working the graveyard shift. I am only going through the motions on SM as I intend to quit once the Good League season finishes. So I don't really care one way or the other about the poll. I don't think I should vote in it because of this.

tupac_healy

Blondie919 wrote: »

I haven't been on Boards for a couple of weeks due to getting work which has me working the graveyard shift. I am only going through the motions on SM as I intend to quit once my respective seasons finish. So I don't really care one way or the other about the poll. I don't think I should vote in it because of this.

Fair play, out of pure interest seeing as though you are a current manager (of who by the way??) What is your take on all if this?

Edit, your still entitled to your opinion!!!!

KERSPLAT!

Iago wrote: »

I do agree with this, although we're on opposing sides on the debate, the more managers who vote the better.

I do wonder if you would be quite so keen if the Yes vote was ahead though

No need to keep wondering. I sent a PM in each of my gws asking people to vote in both polls, one of which my vote is winning the other, this one, losing

Blondie919

tupac_healy wrote: »

Fair play, out of pure interest seeing as though you are a current manager (of who by the way??) What is your take on all if this?

Edit, your still entitled to your opinion!!!!

I manage Hearts in the Good League, Besiktas in Boards league and AC Milan in EB league. I guess I don't have an opinion cos I've been losing interest since even before I started this job. I nearly quit once or twice before. The third time will be the one.

Hercule Poirot

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Then why are mails sent about manager positions? Sure if they posted here they'd see them?

It's OK for one agenda but not another?

As for your point on them being members, someone can be a member and not post or read the threads, they are still members of the GW

What about people who have since been banned from Boards but are still part of the GW?

#hewhomustnotbenamed

Al Capwned

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

What about people who have since been banned from Boards but are still part of the GW?

#thosewhomustnotbenamed

fyp

KERSPLAT!

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

What about people who have since been banned from Boards but are still part of the GW?

#hewhomustnotbenamed

I suppose they gave up their right to vote when they got banned, I'm not too sure really

@Al, sorry, I didn't mean your 'agenda', it was a poor choice of words, I just meant it should be the same for both, either a GW PM is sent for positions, votes, etc, or none are sent at all. Seems fair enough to me?

Al Capwned

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I suppose they gave up their right to vote when they got banned, I'm not too sure really

@Al, sorry, I didn't mean your 'agenda', it was a poor choice of words, I just meant it should be the same for both, either a GW PM is sent for positions, votes, etc, or none are sent at all. Seems fair enough to me?

No problem this end man.
The GW pm's dont bother me one way or the other, as I see most topics in here. I'd actually prefer to use boards pms as a means of contacting other managers too.

Seamo87

Got the GW Pm, thanks KERSPLAT....and I have voted.

KERSPLAT!

Seamo87 wrote: »

Got the GW Pm, thanks KERSPLAT....and I have voted.

Cheers

Maldjd23

I am leaning toward not voting at all to be honest. I honestly can see the reasons for both sides of the argument.

KERSPLAT!

Who does 'My name is URL' manage?

GT_TDI_150

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Then why are mails sent about manager positions? Sure if they posted here they'd see them?

It's OK for one agenda but not another?

As for your point on them being members, someone can be a member and not post or read the threads, they are still members of the GW

Probably becausr of the 24hr window for manager jobs as opposed to 30days for this vote.

KERSPLAT!

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Probably becausr of the 24hr window for manager jobs as opposed to 30days for this vote.

Makes no odds really. Again, they should go out for all or nothing. I've no idea why such a big deal is being made about the PM anyway, surely you'd want as many people voting as possible!? A proper representation of what the league want instead of a miserable 20 or so of 60 managers voting.

Obviously some would rather no one else voted seeing as how the results may favor them but I'd rather if everyone, or as close as possible, voted, even if that means the side I'm on loses

GT_TDI_150

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Makes no odds really. Again, they should go out for all or nothing. I've no idea why such a big deal is being made about the PM anyway, surely you'd want as many people voting as possible!? A proper representation of what the league want instead of a miserable 20 or so of 60 managers voting.

Obviously some would rather no one else voted seeing as how the results may favor them but I'd rather if everyone, or as close as possible, voted, even if that means the side I'm on loses

Couldnt care how many vote, havent even deviced what way i'll vote yet but if people cant be arsed to contribute on the forum which this league is for then why should they be taken into account when it comes to voting???

Even the banned few know more bout what is said here than some.

KERSPLAT!

I had a long retort typed out but really all I need to say is, they are in the league so they should get a say on what happens in the league, It's a rule that you must be a member, not that you must take part in anyway

KERSPLAT!

Had a look at the contact list for the league but still can't see My name is URL, anyone know him or his team? Or has he just voted for the craic?

TheGunns

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Had a look at the contact list for the league but still can't see My name is URL, anyone know him or his team? Or has he just voted for the craic?

I recognise the name but it might just be from another section

Iago

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Had a look at the contact list for the league but still can't see My name is URL, anyone know him or his team? Or has he just voted for the craic?

What about DVD lots? Or are you just that determined to undermine the "leave it off" vote?

Or indeed shemo87, who seems to have a team in the copa world but not this league.

KERSPLAT!

Iago wrote: »

What about DVD lots? Or are you just that determined to undermine the "leave it off" vote?

Or indeed shemo87, who seems to have a team in the copa world but not this league.

Not at all, any vote that doesn't have a team in the boards league shouldn't count. Whatever side it's on.

You think awfully bad of me for some reason. As before, you're thinking is wrong. I've PMed My name is URL to try clear it up. He said he didn't vote but his housemate may have and may have used his account by mistake, he said he'll ask and get back to me.


I'm not some mad eejit on a rampage, I'm just looking for a fair vote, the same as anyone else

edit- My name is URL was pointed out to me by someone. If the others were I would have said the same about them