Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

@Lyrgard , thanks for sharing your experience and battle reports on the map -- those are always fun to read, and useful too.

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Thanks @capsocrates -- nominations that come with a bit of background analysis like this are exactly what we like.

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Just finished building Dignan's Cage Match. Used some of my custom terrain.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community...h_original.jpg

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Amazing solution to the eye sore of uncapped pillars

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

@Seraph , thank you very much for the kind words.

And though it comes a tad late, I know..... Welcome to the forums!

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Do I understand correctly that this is a one-phase voting process? No nomination phase, just voting?

Interesting. The advantage of efficiency is obvious. I can see, however, a situation where a late-voting judge torpedoes a map that one or two of his colleagues have been testing, and that might lead to some frustration. If I'm reading it correctly. It's a trade-off, and I'm sure a well-considered one.

Good luck, guys!

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Seems that that could happen about as easily with a two-phase voting structure, really. There has been more than one occasion in BoV history where a judge posted a "yeah, I was about to vote XXX" post after a map received its deciding vote one way or the other, and that includes YES votes after the second NO.

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

It's an interesting innovation. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I like how it streamlines the process. I think you are, however, somewhat more likely to have a situation where judges A, B, C, D, and E all consider a map, and judge A gives it a :down:. Then Judges B and C invest time into testing it for a few weeks, then Judge F finally gets around to looking at it and decides it's not worth testing, so he throws a :down: into the pit and it's over. Under a two-stage process, B and C do not invest the time until F has already been heard. Or outvoted, for the purpose of advancing to the testing stage.

On the other hand, that scenario is probably not going to come up very often. And you will be able to turn around maps much faster, apparently, because you have less voting to do. And if Judge B does not like it when Judge F torpedoes a map he's been testing, then next time Judge B could just send a PM or a tag to @Judge F, and tickle a vote out of him, and problem solved.

I'm just musing about your process, not trying to be critical.

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

I wonder if the choice of "judge F" there was accidental. :lol:

Anyway, it took you only until the end of your first paragraph to argue against yourself. I'm not saying it doesn't slightly increase the likelihood of this scenario, but it's not that significant of an increase. FWIW I've seen this exact scenario play out w.r.t. one of my maps, more than once, in BoV. Once a judge whose vote wasn't required to get things to review (got enough YtRs without him) voted no after yes votes had come in. In another case a yes to induct vote was posted a few days after the requisite no to induct votes had been received.

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Hiya big Daddy_S, :wave:

Ignore dok's "arguing against yourself" line. He's just trying to push your buttons, because we know you love having your buttons pushed. :D

Thanks for even taking the time to read our by-laws! Yes, I think you capture our intentions exactly: we think the streamlined efficiency and faster processing to be gained by eliminating the separate nomination phase should more than make up for any possible disadvantages. That's the plan anyway...

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

I wouldn't say I'm exactly trying to push D_S's buttons here. D_S and I communicate privately and regularly (including on this subject) so I think he knows when I mean to push his buttons. ;)

Just pointing out that, as he noted, a judge can be outvoted in the BoV process (or, as I add, just not vote at all in the first stage) so this same issue can present itself in a two-stage process.

The only way to truly prevent this sort of thing is to parcel out assignments to individual judges. As I understand it, this is the new SoV approach. For now, in WoS, we are giving the judges liberty to review as they see fit, with some internal communication so judges know if a review is coming on a given map.

Re: WARGROUNDS of SCAPE (WoS) - discussion thread
 

Don't worry about it, Typhon. I wasn't arguing against myself. (a) I wasn't arguing with anyone, and (b) even if I had been trying to argue with dok, I wasn't actually arguing against myself. I reread that post & still have no idea what he was talking about.

It's too early in the morning for dok to be intoxicated, so I'm not sure why he's so excitable. Regardless, I let it pass.

I imagine that the advantage of streamlining will outweigh the potential disadvantage of clouding the timing of when testing is done, however, if I was working on this project I would be mindful of that wrinkle before I invested significant time in testing a map.

:2cents:. Carry on.