BuzzerBeater Forums

Bugs, bugs, bugs > NT candidates disappearing...

NT candidates disappearing...

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
77769.9 in reply to 77769.7
Date: 2/28/2009 4:57:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Could it be that if all other 4 candidates had 0 votes they were just dropped even though they were all tied for 4th, technically?


That would be correct.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
77769.10 in reply to 77769.9
Date: 2/28/2009 5:00:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
Could it be that if all other 4 candidates had 0 votes they were just dropped even though they were all tied for 4th, technically?


That would be correct.


So is this considered a bug, or a gap in the rules documentation? I vote bug... for small countries, probably a good idea to not cut the zero-vote users.

This Post:
00
77769.12 in reply to 77769.10
Date: 2/28/2009 5:38:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
The three candidates voted themselves, so currently there is a three way tie (mot probably) each with one vote.

Being a small country it wouldn't hurt to let them have more than those 4 first days, but I guess the game goes the way the game goes.

This Post:
00
77769.13 in reply to 77769.11
Date: 2/28/2009 5:43:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
So is this considered a bug, or a gap in the rules documentation? I vote bug... for small countries, probably a good idea to not cut the zero-vote users.

I'm pretty sure it's a feature.


If so, I don't like it. For countries where 1 or 2 votes are enough to win, you're potentially eliminating viable candidates.

Anyway, if it is working as designed, let's get the rules fixed.

This Post:
00
77769.15 in reply to 77769.14
Date: 3/1/2009 2:25:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00


Anyway, if it is working as designed, let's get the rules fixed.



It's working as designed. The reason we picked this solution is that the typical small country HT election has about 150 candidates and 3 votes, and just turns into a complete mess.

When it's cutting 7 to 3, I agree that's somewhat less of a problem, but I guess the issue is that as we grow, it's going to be a heck of a lot more than 7.


Can the rules be more clear about this particular thing though? Just specify that anyone with 0 votes is out or something

This Post:
00
77769.16 in reply to 77769.10
Date: 3/4/2009 8:28:42 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9696
there is no point in not cutting them... they didn't get votes , so they are not likely to get votes in the second round either...

besides, let's asume a weird situation, in which there are 500 candidates, but only 3 got votes. then all 500 would stay in the second round, since they all are tied for the 4th spot...

it is better to eliminate every candidate with 0 votes (didn't they vote for themselves??)

Last edited by Lord of Doom at 3/4/2009 9:40:31 AM

They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.
This Post:
00
77769.17 in reply to 77769.16
Date: 3/4/2009 8:31:36 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
there is no point in not cutting them... they didn't get votes , so they are not likely to get votes in the second round either...


Absolutely disagree. The point is that in small countries, you end up cutting managers who may be only one vote away from winning, and there are all kinds of good reasons why someone may not have voted before the first cut. This policy may even effectively end the election in some cases, where only one candidate gets a vote before the cut.

If the reasoning is to keep the list manageable in the case where there are large numbers of candidates in a small country, I can accept that.

Last edited by Mod-oeuftete at 3/4/2009 8:33:11 AM