Desert of Flames Voting

Noooo... It failed to meet the required supermajority. Just because you don't *like* the value required in no way indicates a failure in the system. If Congress fails to get its 2/3 supermajority required for whatever it needs, then guess what? That item does not pass. 65% doesn't cut it. It's not a failure, in any sense.

Most interesting topic on the internet ATM. I credit the polarization of the opposing factions. Everyone loves polarized factions.

On one side, we have the NO-VOTERS. These are people who actually have the gall to cast their vote based on their own personal preferences. Smug in their ivory towers, they are consistently ignoring the tortured cries of the oppressed YES-VOTERS, who want nothing more than for everyone to like what they like, and not like what they don't like.

On the other side, the YES-VOTERS. They are voting Yes, you bet, but they are doing so much more. They are also lobbying the NO-VOTERS by consistently pointing out that if the majority refuses to see things their way, they WILL quit this game. The majority has shown very little concern about this possibility, so the YES-VOTERS have been quite adamant - they WILL quit!! Seriously! If you don't vote Yes, they're outta here. So, you know, just, uh...take that into account when you're, uh, you know, deciding how to vote.

Will the YES-VOTERS get the message through to the NO-VOTERS, that they are seriously thinking about taking their ball and going home if they don't get their way?

Personally, I think yes, message received. And ignored.

I was referring to a democratic vote is suppose to represent the wishes of the majority of a population. Which the current system can fail at that, like I pointed out.

Congress actually uses a simple majority for most issues; as does the Supreme Court, British Parliament, City council meetings, and PTA boards etc. Very few things in the real world require a super majority to pass things.

you are blinded if you think yes voters are the only ones making fun of people

You, no voters, just refuse to understand one simple thing when defending this biased system. It's not a congress where the number of voters is a constant every time. With every failed vote servers lose a portion of potential yes voters, they just quit or not renewing their subscribtions and you obviously can't vote if not subbed. So take a minute and think about it.

Do you hear yourself? You are saying some one should not voice their concerns on a system, if the things they are concerned about have not yet happened.

I am not saying it will ever happen, odds are it will at some point in time, but that is irrelevant. I am saying there is a blatant flaw in the current system that needs to be addressed. I also do not think a simple 51% majority vote is the best solution, however I do feel it is better than the current system.

There are about a dozen or so things Congress needs a 2/3 vote for. Local governments use 2/3 as well, quite often, to override vetos or whatnot. It's not at all uncommon. My point is that the rules have been presented. They are that a 2/3 supermajority is required to make an irreversible change to the world. 65% doesn't cut it, and isn't a failure of democracy, at all, within the rules of the system, in exactly the same way a 65% loss in Congress would not represent a failure of democracy, because the rules for that vote require a supermajority.

Are you threatening me?

The number of voters in Congress is not constant every time. It has a fixed maximum. Congressmen can abstain, in exactly the way folks here can abstain. The vote is then counted on present voters, and a 2/3 supermajority of voters present may be required. If 2/3 of the entire population is required, that is called an absolute majority. There are situations where each are acceptable.

Ucala is right. Honestly, from my experience, the no-voters are much more hostile than those that want a yes vote. From the very beginning, they've told everyone that wants to push the server to a different expansion point to "Go Back To Live".
They've called everyone that just played the game as "rushers", "grinders", "server first losers". I have seen many people from the other side trying to explain the advantages of allowing a few expansions in, and they are immediately attacked by several no voters. I see this as a good representation of the current political landscape as pointed out by Lightrock, somewhat.

I'm personally fine with the server going either way. I would like to see the server get to RoK, and then stay there for a very long while. However, I like playing different classes, so if it doesn't go through, I have something to do for a little while longer.

However, this push to make Yes voters the bad guys has gone on long enough. It's like the No voters are Democrats, attacking anyone that doesn't agree with their ideology. The Yes voters are Republicans promising the new content will help everyone, constantly having to defend their stance. The rest of us are like the independents, being pulled into both directions.

I still don't see why both sides don't realize that there is a potential for compromise. Two groups standing their ground, will never lead to either accomplishing anything.

are you serious? on deathtoll most non end-gamers have turned off chat because they're sick of being told how lame they are for not being 50.

Yes the rules have been presented, they also have been altered once already. I am just stating the way the progression is decided needs some attention.

In your opinion; this is not a fact.

Eradani, obviously you missed the point where I said from my experience. I play on Stormhold, and have had no interest in the PvP server since EQ will ever do PvP like DAOC did.

DOF WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

in case anyone is watching, DoF passed on Stormhold now.
that being said I am now on the "winning" side since I voted yes.

I still think 2/3s is a dumb requirement though. I won't change my views just because I won.

The voting rules were clearly changed. Wrong as usual Einzelhaft Narynn.

DoF unlocked. Guess we can all revisit this topic again in a month or two.

Thx god. When it will be ON?

In what way? What I said was it is an opinion that "the way the progression is decided needs some attention." =) Which it is. It is in no way a fact. =)