MitD XII: This Space Intentionally Left Dark

[Peelee]

On the one hand, I like the tpocal dragon. On the other, I wonder which SW character you'd have made me...

[Jasdoif]

... and you didn't notice that the whole process is just a needlessly complicated way of tallying the following...?

That Vampire: "I'd implement C, D, E"
Darth Zannah: "I'd implement B, D"
Darth Bane: "I'd implement nothing"
That Dragon: "I'd implement D, F"
Darth Vader: "I'd implement B, C, D, F"
Darth Tyranus: "I'd implement nothing"
Only Zuul: "I'd implement B, C, D"
Darth Sidious: "I'd implement nothing"

You can see that C will be a tie (4 for, 4 against) and that D is the only thing that will pass (supported by 5, opposed by 3).

Having the participants bother ranking the stuff they all rank >A is absolutely useless.

If Darth Tyranus had been "A ; C" instead of "A ; B"...C would've ended up with a majority after D. Besides that, I didn't feel like second-guessing your table was appropriate, not if I was actually going to answer how'd I resolve it.

On the one hand, I like the tpocal dragon. On the other, I wonder which SW character you'd have made me...

I was picking the Darths at random, really.

[lio45]

Jasdoif, you'll want to go and review the edited version of my post, as I slightly messed up the alphabet soup originally (I'm on the East Coast, so I'm +3h ahead of you and way past the point I should have gone to bed) but took the time to straighten it up afterwards :)

The newer post is more complete, and explains in more detail why I think this way of tallying votes makes no sense especially given there's a very simple and maximally democratic way to do it that is staring us in the face.

[b_jonas]

There's rules for scaling of food-eaten but as far as I recall it's all "this provides food for one Medium creature, halve that for Large or double for Small" and so on.

The rules for the Create Food and Water cleric spell says that it provides "Food and water to sustain three humans or one horse/level for 24 hours".

How did the whole mage hand thing come here though? What spellcaster do you suppose the MitD is that can cast the level 0 mage hand and something for the escape, but not the level 1 spell Unseen Servant (which lifts 20 pounds)?

[Mightymosy]

I don't think either rule helps in finding out MitD's species, but I'd rather do less work.
I vote A.

(I would accept D if necessary, but I'd rather not be tasked with doing the change, especially since I wouldn't know how to change the OP)

[Vulkos]

Jasdoif, you'll want to go and review the edited version of my post, as I slightly messed up the alphabet soup originally (I'm on the East Coast, so I'm +3h ahead of you and way past the point I should have gone to bed) but took the time to straighten it up afterwards :)

The newer post is more complete, and explains in more detail why I think this way of tallying votes makes no sense especially given there's a very simple and maximally democratic way to do it that is staring us in the face.

I'm not sure I can understand all the fuss (it seems perfectly normal to me that some people would vote A and then, in a different PV, if A is defeated, X) but I admit I was wondering, when I cast my vote yesterday night (I'm from Italy so it was like 4 a.m.), how could this system work when allowed to vote for multiple choices in the same PV.
It's a system, I think, meant to have a sole winner.

I will take my time thinking about it as soon as I can, but if someone, in the meanwhile, will come to explain to me it would me much appreciated :)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

:: sees two pages of discussing about voting ::

Oh FFS.

This is not that difficult. List what you want to happen, in the order of preference.

First example, picking letters at random. Let's say you really like (B, C, D & E). That's your first vote. Then, of those, you can live without D, so you vote for (B, C, E). In fact, you really would like some combination of B, C, E, so your third vote is (B, C, E, anything else) - that would add a vote to any other set that contains B, C, E. After that, maybe you really don't think you want C or E without B, so you vote (B).

Or, the other way around, you really want B & C. So you vote (B, C) as first vote. Beyond that, you are happy with any combination that includes B, C, so PV2 is (B, C, Anything). And you feel that the FBS really needs an extra filter, so you finish off with (Not A) (I'll also accept, and probably use, (!A) ).

Or, looking at my own vote: I vote A, because I don't want the category to change. Then, if enough people want a change, I vote D as my highest preference, followed by D and F as my next, and F on its own as the last one.

If you need extra votes, by all means. I can extend the table a few extra spots, and I can add extra lines for the same voter if it gets too broad.

ETA: Also, the vote tally should now be up to date; if anyone's votes are missing, please let me know.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

Pros:

5. It has two eyes. And all naga have eyes that glow with an inner light.

This is a quibble, but its been brought up a lot and I finally got around to actually looking it up. Ha-Nagas have the same eyes as other Nagas, and their eyes don't glow. The text says "The eyes of a naga are bright and intelligent, burning with an almost hypnotic inner light."

Nowhere does it say they're glowing. Sure, something having (I'm paraphrasing) "bright eyes, burning with inner light" *could* be interpreted as being glowing, but they certainly don't have to be, and the art doesn't back it up, either. The picture of a regular Naga (I'm not sure which kind it is) has yellow eyes, but they aren't glowing, and in the picture of the Ha-Naga its eyes are surprisingly normal-looking, and neither yellow nor glowing.

The Ha-Naga pic is below.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EP...C5_Ha-Naga.jpg

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(I would accept D if necessary, but I'd rather not be tasked with doing the change, especially since I wouldn't know how to change the OP)

Would depend on what the voted option is. For D, in practice it's a simple "move glabrezu to section 3e", so I'd probably do it myself. The "if you vote it, be ready to do it" is my protection from much more involved changes like, say, if we voted to remove the size limit, which would add, at my best estimate, no fewer than 6 new creatures to FBS and I don't want to figure out which ones nor do their write-ups (some are already done, since a few used to be in the FBS before we voted for the size limit and moved them out in the first place. About the only good thing would be that my old favourite, the Dread Linnorm, would be back in the FBS list).

So, with that in mind, I've listed you as [(A); (D)]. Do let me know if that's not accurate.

Also, everyone: please be aware that 3Power did add a couple of extra voting options. By all means, if any of them tickle your fancy, feel free to let me know.

ETA: Worst part about these votes: it's hard for me to keep up with the thread. SO many posts I missed or lightly read. Sorry 'bout that.

Of the creatures proposed so far, I like the Athasian Nightmare Beast the most, but I haven't submitted a guess because I don't think we have the creature in this thread yet. It would perhaps be better to call it my least unlikely answer.

I believe you could express your current beliefs as "Something not listed > ANB", in a similar way to how Mightymosy did it, if you felt it would be appropriate. Not that I encourage or discourage participating in Crusher's list of guesses. To each their own.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

I had to go to bed yesterday night but the fact that Jasdoif's resolution produced a tie for C where there shouldn't have been one screamed for a tweaked example where it would instead cause C to actually win.

It's of course easily done, by going from an even number of voters to an odd number through the elimination of any one who votes A while not voting for C. Let's thus scratch Darth Sidious, the last participant, and fall down to a nice odd number of seven.

There are now three possible ways to resolve the final voting situation shown below:

1) The (so flawed it'd be funny if it weren't sad) resolution that has "A" winning, by treating every different combo of letters as its own entry, deciding we have to pick one and only one winner, and mindlessly applying IRV to that.

2) The lio45 resolution, which has D and only D implemented.

3) The Jasdoif resolution, which has both C and D implemented.

Voter	PV 1	PV 2	PV 3	PV 4	PV 5	PV 6
That Vampire	D, E	C	A
Darth Zannah	B, D	A
The Aboleth	A	C
That Dragon	D	D, F	F	A
Darth Vader	C, D	C	D	B	F	A
Darth Tyranus	A	B
Only Zuul	B, C, D	B	C	A

You'll note that in the "Jasdoif resolution", what happens is that The Aboleth, whose preference is "I'd rather have no changes be made", actually single-handedly causes C to get implemented. He's the one who makes it win 4-3 instead of getting defeated 4-3.

[Aveline]

"A; C" does not just mean "I strictly prefer that no changes be made". It means "I prefer no changes, but if changes are to be made, I prefer we adopt resolution C". An A;C vote improving the chances of C is not a glitch. It is the obvious effect of such a vote.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

so flawed it'd be funny if it weren't sad

Yes, yes, you feel that PV is not going to produce the result you want. Cry me a river.

A vote for (X) is not the same as a vote for every set containing (X). And a vote(X, Y) is not the same as a vote for only X or only Y. You want anything but A? Vote for that. You want X or Y, alone or paired? Vote (X|Y). Or list every possible combination that you consider acceptable. Hel knows it would have taken you less time than the massive posts complaining about a standard voting system I didn't come up with.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

"A; C" does not just mean "I strictly prefer that no changes be made". It means "I prefer no changes, but if changes are to be made, I prefer we adopt resolution C". An A;C vote improving the chances of C is not a glitch. It is the obvious effect of such a vote.

But it's CAUSING the change to happen! How can you guys NOT see that?

This "but if changes are to be made..." is complete nonsense. If that's really how you want to treat this vote, then do it the proper way, by first having a binary vote ("change something" vs "no change"), and if "change something" gets a simple majority in that binary vote, then you can have fun running your IRV system on a bunch of separate things to pick the one that's the least undesirable to the community.

But that would be a ridiculous way of doing it.

Yes, yes, you feel that PV is not going to produce the result you want. Cry me a river.

No. Honestly, it's stupid and flawed, and stupidity is one of my pet peeves.

"The result I want" is a functional voting system. That's it. I don't care what the result is, as long as it actually reflects the will of the thread.




ETA:

A vote for (X) is not the same as a vote for every set containing (X). And a vote(X, Y) is not the same as a vote for only X or only Y. You want anything but A? Vote for that. You want X or Y, alone or paired? Vote (X|Y). Or list every possible combination that you consider acceptable.

This (treating every different combo as its own entry) is disastrously flawed, and I'm pretty sure Jasdoif would be able to explain that to you if you don't want to hear it from me.

Hel knows it would have taken you less time than the massive posts complaining about a standard voting system I didn't come up with.

Grey Wolf

Wait a minute, there are documented cases of people misapplying IRV to a situation where nothing, one thing, or several independent things can be implemented? Link, please.

[Aveline]

Without the secondary vote, different changes would be made. Voting for no change and also a specific change is simply a contingency for the case of "no change" failing the vote. Really, this is the whole point of instant runoff.

[lio45]

Without the secondary vote, different changes would be made. Voting for no change and also a specific change is simply a contingency for the case of "no change" failing the vote. Really, this is the whole point of instant runoff.

First off, "the case of no change" is never going to fail to win a (grossly misapplied to a situation where you don't need one and only one winner) IRV system where every single possible combo is treated as its own distinct entry. This would be a total joke, by the way. Did you actually guys run the previous votes that way? My God.

And secondly... the one and only possible effect of your "contingency" vote would be to make that thing you don't want to win, eventually win. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Peelee]

But it's CAUSING the change to happen! How can you guys NOT see that?

How? Assume "no change" has 49% of the vote. Regardless of how many other options there are, even if all but two get removed because none crossed the majority threshold, so long as "no change" was one a finalist then then Aveline's second choice of "this change" will never come into play, because her vote of "no change" is still in effect.

[Aveline]

...That's the nature of ranked preference voting. Of course people's second choice isn't their first choice. The only way an A;C vote "causes" C to succeed over A is if A doesn't have enough support to win in the first place.

A;C means C is an acceptable compromise, implicitly ranking C above all options that aren't A.

Edit: Also, I'm not actually voting. I'm defending the legitimacy of another user's vote.

[Peelee]

Edit: Also, I'm not actually voting. I'm defending the legitimacy of another user's vote.

Well, now you're sucked up into being my example because I'm on my phone and just looked at who lio was replying to. Welcome to politics! I'll vote for you next time to make up for it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How? Assume "no change" has 49% of the vote. Regardless of how many other options there are, even if all but two get removed because none crossed the majority threshold, so long as "no change" was one a finalist then then Avwline's second choice of "this change" will never come into play, because her vote of "no change"is still in effect.

There is always a way. It's been mathematically proved (possibly by Condorcet?) that no voting system can be perfect. There are always ways in which to set up initial conditions that will produce strange situations to occur, and that, given a list of objectives that are normally intended, that they are actually at odds with each other.

In a scenario like this in which I assume most people do not want more than one or two options at once, PV of sets works well enough, and I can link to a video rather than explain it.

Now, the most obvious issue with PV is the "discarded second best" scenario. Imagine a voting in which everyone wants a different primary vote, but everyone agrees that B would be their second choice. But because no-one put B in their first vote, they are the first to be discarded.

Every other voting process has its own issues, and since I can't predict what is going to be voted, I can't pick the "correct" one. I am, however, still trying to determine consensus, and if something similar to "discarded second best" happens, and enough people think that is the case, we can still override the vote. I simply hope it won't come to that.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

How? Assume "no change" has 49% of the vote. Regardless of how many other options there are, even if all but two get removed because none crossed the majority threshold, so long as "no change" was one a finalist then then Avwline's second choice of "this change" will never come into play, because her vote of "no change"is still in effect.

That makes no sense at all. You can't just run "no change" straight against "change"; if "change" wins, you'll then proceed to run a vote that might very well end up producing something most people wouldn't like.

That's actually a very documented flaw of the 2016 Brexit vote - "status quo" lost to "all the possible forms of Brexit combined" by 48% to 52%, but since there are no possible single form of "change" that can get anywhere near >50% support, the "change" option has then predictably stalled. And if anything happens, you can bet that it will be unsatisfying to >50% of people. That's not good, democratically speaking.

In your example - 49% vote "no change", while the other 51% all vote for various different things, every single of which is greatly opposed by most participants. We'll stupidly end up implementing one of those (the least unpalatable), because we have to. How is that good?

In our case, the correct way to run a vote is to simply run each proposed change on a simple majority basis.

Again - that's because we aren't forced to pick one and only one winner. We can pick "nothing", or we can also pick more than one thing to be implemented.





------------------------------------
I'll make it very simple.

Imagine 90% of people want to implement "B", but each of them also ideally wishes to implement some weird pet things of them that have little support, and most of their "B" votes are for "B" in combination with various alphabet soup combinations; not enough of them have cast actual votes for "just plain B" for "just plain B" to be able to beat "just plain A".

Against the will of 90% of the participants, "B" gets denied.

This is absolute nonsense.

I suppose it's too early on the West Coast right now but I'm wishing for people with at least reliable basic math and common sense (Kish, Jasdoif) to come back in here so I can get some backup.

[Peelee]

In your example - 49% vote "no change", while the other 51% all vote for various different things, every single of which is greatly opposed by most participants.

And for no change to win, at least some of the other 51% have to be OK with no change on some level. I see no problem there.

I'll make it very simple.

Imagine 90% of people want to implement "B", but each of them also ideally wishes to implement some weird pet things of them that have little support, and most of their "B" votes are for "B" in combination with various alphabet soup combinations; not enough of them have cast actual votes for "just plain B" for "just plain B" to be able to beat "just plain A".

Against the will of 90% of the participants, "B" gets denied.

Again, that's a great argument for "don't vote for multiple things." Strategic voting isn't eliminated here, it still absolutely exists.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Again, that's a great argument for "don't vote for multiple things." Strategic voting isn't eliminated here, it still absolutely exists.

Yes (and that is indeed the case for every voting system I know of), but it can be relegated to down-preference voting. Hopefully. You start with what you really want, and once that is out of the way, you strategic vote for what you can live with. And at some point, what is left is all equally bad, and don't care at that point.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

There is always a way. It's been mathematically proved (possibly by Condorcet?) that no voting system can be perfect.

Depends on the application. If, for example, we're a group of five people and we're voting in a binary vote (say we're adventuring, and there's a fork in the road, and we have to pick left or right), there is a perfect voting system for that application: simple majority.

(To be pedantic and cover all bases - "simple majority where any of the five who says they don't care gets their vote replaced by a flipped penny")

Every other voting process has its own issues, and since I can't predict what is going to be voted, I can't pick the "correct" one.

Absolutely untrue. This particular application screams for "running each suggested change on a simple majority basis".

It's the perfect voting system for what we're trying to do here. Condorcet would tell you, if he were still around to.

[Aveline]

Say 20% want K but only with X. 20% want K but only with Y. 20% want K but only with Z... and so forth with W and Q.

In this case there is no "K that everyone wants", even though everyone seems to want K, because any implementation involving X, Y, Z, W or Q would disappoint 80%, and any other would disappoint 100%.

So instead the vote runs off and L is implemented which disappoints 40% or even 60%, depending on the vote, but this is still preferable to implementing K even though everyone wants K.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Absolutely untrue. This particular application screams for "running each suggested change on a simple majority basis".

Lets say we did do that, and we end up with majorities voting for both no change and Increasing strength. There, your "infallible" voting approach just produced a contradiction.

Unless you suggest the pick with the highest score, which means we'd need to vote for every possible combination, which is a ridiculous ask.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

Strategic voting isn't eliminated here, it still absolutely exists.

And you still don't see how that's total nonsense...?

In the fictional example I posted, the fact that B gets denied (entirely and only due to "unstrategic" combinations on the part of non-coordinated participants) is absolute idiocy. It's crystal clear that there's a near total consensus in favor of implementing B.

We don't need to operate like that. At all.

[Aveline]

Lets say we did do that, and we end up with majorities voting for both no change and Increasing strength. There, your "infallible" voting approach just produced a contradiction.

Unless you suggest the pick with the highest score, which means we'd need to vote for every possible combination, which is a ridiculous ask.

Grey Wolf

"No change" wouldn't be run in a per-change simple majority voting session. Voting for no change would just mean voting no every time.

But individual changes would still be voted on with respect to their relationship with other, possibly changing, parts of the FBS criteria, meaning a successive vote like this would be very, very muddy, leaving voters unsure of what result they're actually voting for.

But still, your point basically applies. "If I had known we'd be incorporating change Y, I wouldn't have voted for the incompatible change X! "


The thread is moving fast so I hope this edit gets in in time to be relevant...

And you still don't see how that's total nonsense...?

In the fictional example I posted, the fact that B gets denied (entirely and only due to "unstrategic" combinations on the part of non-coordinated participants) is absolute idiocy. It's crystal clear that there's a near total consensus in favor of implementing B.

We don't need to operate like that. At all.

As I've illustrated, it is possibly for what everyone wants to actually be a common trait of the different things everyone actually wants, meaning what "everyone wants", nobody actually wants.

[lio45]

Lets say we did do that, and we end up with majorities voting for both no change and Increasing strength. There, your "infallible" voting approach just produced a contradiction.

? Not at all. It's rigorously impossible to have a majority voting for increasing strength at the same time as we have a majority voting for no change and/or not having "increasing strength" listed in what they're supporting. My approach doesn't produce contradictions.

Try it, you'll see.

The worst case that my approach can result in is a tie for any one given suggestion, in the rare case that an even number of participants are voting and exactly half of them support "increasing strength" while the other half opposes it.

And that's easily fixed, by making the Thread Curator's vote count for 1-and-a-fraction vote. (i.e. making GW always tiebreaker in all cases of ties.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"No change" wouldn't be run in a per-change simple majority voting session. Voting for no change would just mean voting no every time.

Sure. But I can change my example to "majority votes for both remove strength and increase strength to 40". No Change isn't the only entry with incompatibilities with others.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

And you still don't see how that's total nonsense...?

Doesn't bother me at all, because changing voting system for each vote depending on how each specific vote is structured for a list that does not exert any authority over the participants seems way more nonsensical.