Not once have I ever been talking about bare majorities, I've expressed that countless times any time this topic is discussed.
Not so fast. You previously stated: "So lets use this guild of 40 (Guild A) and compare them against a group of 20 organized players (Group B)." Your words.
You may not be talking about "bare majorities," but you're going to the extreme of a super-majority.
The reason you have to keep explaining yourself is because you aren't making any sense. Tactics have not changed under the 'new' system. They are the same as they were before. I'm sorry if no one on your shard (which you haven't identified btw to back your points) figured the game out early. I'll take it as a good sign that they are getting smarter and catching up with the rest of us though.
Nonsense. The new tactics require watching votes, deciding which cities to focus on, and hoping the guild isn't outmaneuvered. The old tactics were simply "Here are six cities, go vote for these six names." I have said this time after time after time. You just don't understand it, preferring to overcomplicate things.
And yes, if a guild wants to win, it has to push people to vote. Sending out a mass ICQ or a forum post doesn't win anything because it doesn't take into account that people may not want to do it right at that moment and then later forget, or maybe they don't have time and they forget, or maybe they just don't care because the whole system seems like something 'loser rprs' only involve themselves in.
What you forget is that the same scale applies to everyone else. There will always be a percentage of all players who will be disinterested in voting, for whatever reason. A guild is "dominant" depending on its interested players relative to all others. If they're 99% of all voters, they
should win elections. If they're 30% or 40% of all voters, they shouldn't automatically have 30% or 40% of votes in six cities.
My point is it's not simple. You want it to be simple, but it is not. You want to fling just math on the board and say "wah-lah! behold! simple! it's done!" However it is nothing like that.
It
is in fact very simple. If you or others don't see it, that's just too bad. It still does not change the mathematical fact.
If a guild has 30 or 40 voting members out of 100 total voters, they no longer have 30 or 40 automatic votes in all cities. Now they actually have to think of where to put the most votes, settling for, say, Minoc and Vesper instead of an excellent chance of
I used real life instances to back my point that you can't just say it's simple as that and will work when you leave out the whole element of how humans behave. I've seen enough of the type that say it is that simple when they really don't have any experience implementing their 'simple' deductions. I flung India, Thailand, and Indonesia in because that is where I have spent the past five+ years implementing projects and having to deal with the human element that someone left out of their projections.
You're again bringing up more irrelevancies of places whose people are even more irrelevant to the the topic of UO elections. You "flung" these names in an attempt to impress others, but it doesn't work on me. "Implementing projects" is a meaningless term.
And not to mock your mis-step... but I am pretty sure they wouldn't appreciate being called third world... the phrase is emerging markets. I hope you explain that to the people you give financial, economic, and statistical advice to.
It's not a "mis-step" in the least. "Emerging markets" is a purely
financial term, nor does it overlap. Not every Third World country is "emerging," or didn't you know what?
International Project Manager
Sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent to give you the idea that you deserve to be fired like them, but you touch a sore spot because you remind me of them, and they were always a huge pain in the arse.
Titles don't impress me either. I've met too many project managers, too many "Six Sigma black belts," who didn't know what to be done.
Pretty sure it gives me vastly more experience than you when it comes to guessing how guild members are going to react to mass ICQs and forum posts.
Bzzt, no. As I said, they're entirely different things. A two-hour dungeon crawl at 8 p.m. is a far cry from a week-long UO election.
They are similar, because it requires coordinating. Your dismissal because of the variance in time frame completely ignores that.
What "coordinating" is involved in telling people, "Log in something during this week"? There is none. Now that's under the
old system. Under the new system, they actually have to do something requiring thought.
Why are you discounting indifferent players? They can still have an affect, the question is how much... and that is pretty much how I summed up that the previous voting system allowed those who really cared to have more of a chance to influence the outcome than those who are indifferent.
I'd also disagree that just because some of those players are indifferent to the election system doesn't mean that guild isn't dominant on the shard.
It simply means they aren't voting. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
A guild may have 50 out of a shard's 100 players, but if only 20 vote, and 40 of the others vote, then the guild is not dominant
insofar as the voting in concerned. Simple, isn't it?
Yes you do, I've clearly stated Great Lakes. This is where you would probably make a dig about reading comprehension, right? I'll on the other hand, let it slide and state again clearly, I am playing on the Great Lakes server.
Actually, no. I never had confirmation where you played. If I had inferred Great Lakes, and you didn't,
you would have jumped down my throat about making assumptions.
Maybe Great Lakes has been ahead of the curve the entire time, because all the tactics you mention, the shard has been employing since the first election. I guess I just assumed people on the other shards would be just as smart as those on Great Lakes.
Now you're defending my point. That's understandable considering
you don't understand it.
Previously you wrote: "Guild A had no way of cracking the whip because at this time, there is no way of telling 1.) who is on the city stone, 2.) if they voted, and 3.) who they voted for."
But that is not the tactic I'm talking about. Six cities, six names, easy voting.
I have mentioned him before. Nothing has been done to him. It is easily provable, he was advertising that he was doing it in general chat. I even tested to see if he was keeping his word, and sure nuff he gave me a million gold check after I threw a vote away on him.
We barely managed to overcome him because we held our votes until people had to go to bed on the final night. The sudden surge didn't allow him time to respond before it was over... Like I said, Great Lakes has been employing these tactics since day one.
This is an example of one person, however. I'm talking about
guilds whose voting members need only pick cities.
Woah! Seems like you do know what shard I play on! I guess you were trying to be an arse when I was being serious about having no clue what shard you are referencing your experiences from.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I know or didn't know, but you brought up Great Lakes. How about
you stop being what you're calling me, or are you going to violate the RoC some more?
Don't be a jerk. Is that so much for me to ask?
They did their best. They told their members to go vote, they blasted out mass ICQs, but there was that human element again... the pleading for votes was mostly ignored, probably because their members felt they had better things to do with their time.
There's my point exactly: despite their numbers, they were not dominant insofar as the votes cast. A region might have 2/3 of its voters registered to a political party, but if enough of them don't go out, their candidate could very well (and deservedly) lose. As a political junkie who's watched many a campaign in addition to friends' campaigns, I've seen surprising turnouts because the dominant political group figured they had it in the bag.
How has this been made more fair? Really, you think punishing an organized person makes this more fair now? Before, it was much easier for a minority to fight the majority because a highly organized minority could somewhat counterbalance a majority from dominating the shard due to the laziness factor of the majority. It didn't mean they kept the majority out of all the cities, but it made it a lot easier for them to snag several cities. From what I can tell, you are advocating that we need to reward lazy people by giving their one vote equal to the one vote of the organized person... whereas before, the organized person had a small advantage over the lazy person.
It is fair now because the old rules required no organization at all. Six cities, six names. That was all. All other voters, in whatever guilds they're in, could fight over the other three all they wanted.
"Lazy" is your word, not mine. If someone logs on to vote, that's all that the
game requires. That's why it's now equal. Now everybody must decide where to vote.
Before, a guild with sufficient voters didn't need the GM or anyone else to think about what cities to vote in. Now they do, and they have to be
just like everyone else in watching turnout, holding votes to the end, and waiting to be outmaneuvered in the last hours. Why is that still so hard for you to understand?
Thats interesting considering you ended one of your posts about how people who play more and do more should receive more reward!
Why do you think there's any problem there? None of it contradicts what I said.
The difference now is that some large guild can't just throw six votes into whatever city it likes. That's it.
Honestly, to end on, I am sorry you've taken such an antagonistic approach to the discussion, and I am aware that part of it has to do with me being sore about a person you remind me of. However, I doubt this response will alleviate that since I was a smart arse about some of your smart arse responses.
And there you go again.
I am not the one calling you names at all, RoC violations notwithstanding.
You are the only one being antagonistic, when I approached your points with straightforward, logical criticisms that had no personal attacks whatsoever.
You are the one bringing up irrelevancies and personal insults, insinuating I'm the kind of guy you'd fire.
You are the kind of clueless, on the other hand, that I'd have quickly fired for not knowing the subject matter.
I role play an old Sage that is a pure mage across the land. I need those little islands so that I can be effective when helping to defend my city on my own 
