Outside of one tasteless post, I haven't seen anything that didn't seem like fun and games.
Truth be told, anything other than spiders would be loved and adored by all (so long as they don't make wood-tree-style innuendos. Could you imagine if batterflies did that? Ick.)
I think many people have enjoyed the sillyness of it. At least this way, most of us have burnt all our votes on a frivolous detail and have less the leverage when something actually important comes up.
You know, like the inevitable "The Rook ate a region. Which one sinks into the void?" vote, or "Rube is taking over someone else's job. Who should it be?" ballot.
hahah yup, that is why I keep my last 34 votes. I did spent 21 on sheep, moose...but most on alpaca...but I guess Fox will beat the alpaca.... hmmm. I like the fox too. I am already glad the monkey didnt make it :)
If I am right, I would appreciate someone lodging a vote in favor of Rube becoming a de-imaginator. If that happened, well, it would be a boon to the smuggling trade.
I really, really hope that doesn't happen--and I say that as someone who is animal neutral.
I know it seems like it would make more people happy, but it would undermine the system and set a bad precedent for how voting works.
Once a topic is set to a vote, it must be determined by the votes, or the system turns into kind of a farce. If "asking nicely in the forums" influences the way a vote turns out--even if it just does so by changing the rules--then votes, which are purchased with real world currency, are essentially meaningless.
And since they are subscription tied, it would be disingenuous to change the rules at this point--anyone who used their votes thinking it would push #3 to #2 would have wasted actual money.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to ask nicely in the forums for devs to make changes about non-vote issues, but once they have put it to a vote, it isn't fair to try and change the winners or what winners mean.
And honestly, I think it'll be a great change for certain community decisions to have some numbers backing them up. Otherwise, everyone on the forums tends to assume that a) most people agree with them, b) all nice people agree with them, and c) anyone who disagrees is being mean. I think it'll be healthy for this community to make a decision together and have the people who didn't get their way have to admit that the numbers say the majority didn't agree with them.
ok just because someone disagrees with someone (or something) it does NOT mean they are being mean hasnt that ever happened to you where you have gotten out voted and disagreed with what you had to do I think that by posting that ^^^^ you are being mean
I've posted this as a reply to someone else's comment on my Glitchy Status Update Twittery thing, but I'll repost here, because it seems appropriate.
...
Since this is the first time people are voting, I think there's a lot of excitement about it. I for one, would prefer votes to be based on more and better information, not just popularity contests. I think that would help improve the quality of the debate beyond "I THINK THIS ANIMAL IS KEWL." However, I'm certain that I am wrong about this.
My apologies guys......my post should have stated that it was not something that happened in the forums. I posted that really late or I would have thought to have said that.
And as for what Pomegrandy said.. I certainly didn't think about it in those terms at all. -_- Xe's right of course. If votes cost real world money (which they do) then changing the rules after the vote is made is desperately unfair to the voters. /le sigh.
Not terribly likely. Also, I'm sure the devs can exercise their own vote to break the tie, based on what they're more inspired to do. I wouldn't complain much if they did.