Official Poll: Barbarians

[FrustratedPoet]

Is Random Barbs the final choice then?

[Spiffor]

FP : yes.

[alva]

Shouldn't we at least have a majority of 2 or 3???

If just one person made a mistake, you get the opposite result!!

[Spiffor]

Shhhhhh Alva, don't say such things, or Trip will hit you

[alva]

He won't mind doing a new one, with aaaaaaaaaaaall the possible options this time

[Jon Shafer]

Though polls are a good +1(0), they're not really worth the effort it takes to put them up.

[ixnay]

Random won; we might as well go with it. Who cares how close it is?

[Meshelic]

This poll doesn't solve one thing however : Some here like to take on hordes of barbarians, while others do not. But none of the voters have a choice if they voted random, because essentially the wording is not right. By setting it to random it could end up with ALL barbarians or NO barbarians.

It did not specify if A) We want barbarians or not , or B) If we DO want Barbarians, then what is their frequency?

Obviously if a majority didn't want Barbarians AT ALL, then the second question of how often they occur is mute. But that didn't happen here, there was no choice given. It seemed like it, but was not.

this poll essentially is killing two birds with one stone, but maybe one of the birds should have been kept alive or killed with an entirely different stone.

This isn't to cause hysteria or grab attention, but I think this is a fact that has been overlooked and requires our attention immediately.

[alva]

Originally posted by Trip
Though polls are a good +1(0), they're not really worth the effort it takes to put them up.

Anything to get to deity

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Meshelic
This poll doesn't solve one thing however : Some here like to take on hordes of barbarians, while others do not. But none of the voters have a choice if they voted random, because essentially the wording is not right. By setting it to random it could end up with ALL barbarians or NO barbarians.

It did not specify if A) We want barbarians or not , or B) If we DO want Barbarians, then what is their frequency?

Obviously if a majority didn't want Barbarians AT ALL, then the second question of how often they occur is mute. But that didn't happen here, there was no choice given. It seemed like it, but was not.

this poll essentially is killing two birds with one stone, but maybe one of the birds should have been kept alive or killed with an entirely different stone.

This isn't to cause hysteria or grab attention, but I think this is a fact that has been overlooked and requires our attention immediately.

I disagree.

The two options were to have barbarians random, or to specify. No barbarians were part of specifying... Specifying none.

[mrmitchell]

in the 2000 presidential elections the popular vote difference was less than one percent, 200,000 nationwide votes
just wanted to bring that up, that however close it is, even the thinnest of majorities wins (or, okay, here to be like the 2000 election Pick would have to be used, hey, that just reminded me of Bush picking his nose )
---
However, no one wants to bring that dead horse up (again) so I'll just close with this summary:

The thinnest of a majority is still a majority. Trip should include in all his polls a reminder that "50% + 1 vote" is a majority.

[alva]

ok, this can be fun, so I'll bite

you do have a point Trip, but so does Meshelic

the first poll maybe should have been

Barbs-yes and
barbs- no
and then go on to the next phase

just to establish the fact wether we should have barbs or not.

[Spiffor]

For one, I agree with Trip (even if I was in favor of specifying) : those who wanted no barbs at all should have voted specify. I assume the randomizers only want the thrill not to know beforehand.

[alva]

I assume most people who choose random, voted for random barb activity, not to possibility of having no barbs

[Jon Shafer]

Correct... that would be defeating their purpose.