I demand a recount!

Four days ago, the Iksar berserker was winning 54-46 over the wood elf beasty. Now all of a sudden it closes an 8 point gap?Bollocks, as the Brits say.

I thought you were in San Diego, Sony, not Chicago.

Guess whatever race/class combo wins best be able to produce a birth certificate.....

But what if its a fake Certificate... they can tell those things are fake by the color of the ink in relation to the size of the letter E... =)

SoE couldn't afford a new ballot system, so they bought Florida's old one!

There already was a recount. That's why the ballot-stuffing totals you were watching didn't stick!

It baffles me why they didn't use a system to allow people to vote once only. That's the cause of all this ballot stuffing cheats. Now they'll have to go through the IP addresses fixing everything I guess.

People should realize that multiple voting is bound to be discovered, esp. if people overdo it.

It doesn't matter which combo wins. If it's not my choice then the vote was fixed.

I don't have any favorites, but it's just strange that the results swap after the close or right near the close almost every time.

The vote was tainted... we know it, they know it...

Hell, at this point I suppose the most reasonable thing to do is pick a few of the more obvious favorites just based on these forum discussions and throw 'em all in during the anniversary. Whatever "result" they come up with from the voting at this point won't be believable...

Someone wants Iksar Berserker, sees them comfortably in the lead, chooses not to vote daily just to increase the margin of victory. Surprise, they lost.

A fair vote requires either frequently deleting "fake" votes or hidden results until the poll completes as visible inaccurate current percentages will bias the vote.

The problem is they never should allow for multiple votes per account, and not able to vote on an account that was just made. These steps would dramatically reduce the number of fluff votes/spam votes. You can't go by ip because there are ways around that.

You can even vote multiple times per day from separate browsers. It was a ridiculous method of voting in the first place - what happened to in-game polls?
This was fixed from the beginning to have us feel as if we contributed.

Its much like the argument in progression voting.. it should be limited to 1 vote per IP Address... And you must log in to account to vote. If you try to vote again using same account at different IP address then it will not take or if you try to use a different account at same IP... Limit the votes to 1 per person to really see what people want.

There are ways around this... personally, I think it should have been 1 vote per round per GOLD MEMBER, tied to your EQ account. Why? Because screw non-paying players having as much say as I do (and the rest of the paying customers), that's why...

... but then again, I'm a mean person.

I just want to limit people who box 10+ accounts from throwing the vote. If you have 40 players and 30 vote no and 10 vote yes then you can call the majority wins. But with box accounts those numbers may get changed. Lets say of the 30 that voted no 10 box 2 accounts.. now we have 40 votes for no.. but the 10 who vote yes each box full groups.. thats 50 more votes for them give them 60 votes.. the majority now appears that yes is the vote... But its not. Only 10 people actually voted and so the majority lost because the voting is being done in a way to cause confusion and clear problems.

I agree in some ways that gold members should sometimes have more say, but there are also test players who play for free and many certainly put in enough work to warrant a vote.

Paying vs Nonpaying should not be a consideration. There are plenty of reasons that a person may not be a paying account (life/job/army/etc) so telling them they have no say in something just because they currently are not paying (and you dont know how much they actually have spent on game or market)... they somehow dont count as much. Like you said.. Test players do not pay and yet they contribute a lot and have to deal with alot. Entitlement IMO should come to those who have played the longest. You should have more say depending on the age of your account.

I disagree entirely that the length you've been playing should somehow entitle you to more input and I've played since 1999. Your $14.99 a month is no less valuable than mine. This is the same as them rewarding recurring subscriptions while telling the people that pay month to month (and do actually pay more for the game) that they aren't as important as the rest.

I think this is the true problem. There are a lot of ideas as to how they could stop multiple votes, but none of them work. Some are just slightly better than others.

But think about how it would affect votes. If your votes count as 5 people if your account is 5 years old... 10 if its 10 years old.. and additional 2 each year older than that.. you would have your vote count as 16votes.. I think that should be the way to make sure that people who box accounts cant use that as a way to sway votes. Because most box accounts are new accounts or accounts that are not that old. Yes there are some that will be older accounts, but for most the accounts wouldnt be counted as high and it would give players who have played for years more say so in the game they have dedicated more tiem and money into.