What does "discount" mean against the names?

A "discount" is a friendly vote and it counts as a half a vote. You can give someone a discount when u can t play w him because of an interest's conflict like being part from the same staking group, discussing game strategy, living together...

Why should you be able to give half a yes in those situations? It just means that people as part of a stable / with a lot of friends get a head-start on everybody else, whilst also intensifying the pressure on those within the cartel since a trier can focus their attacks on less of the group if they only require x votes as opposed to x + discounts.

Just something to think about perhaps, I know if I was a lone ranger as part of that group I'd feel a bit aggrieved.

you get credit for being friends with someone in a cartel? oh dear!

Getting half a vote when the requirement is to get 50% yes votes is as neutral as you can get. If a discount counted as a 'no' vote then people would be punished for having discounts since then you'd have 'no' votes that you couldn't change. All the discount does atm is effectively lower the # of people who you're trying to get 50% votes from. It's true that with this type of vote system it is all about volume and stuff so in that sense a discount is a slight advantage, but on the other hand, the vote system is so much harder than getting in by EV that it doesn't really matter anyway.

Think of it this way, for "lone rangers" if the difficulty of getting in by EV is 7, the difficulty of getting in by votes is 50.

For "staked/connected players" the difficulty of getting in by EV is still 7, while the difficulty of getting in by votes is 48.

If people tried to make the vote system a viable option for getting in then the point you bring up would be something to keep in mind, though. But I imagine a good way of making the vote system fair would be to hit something like 7 yes votes, in which case a discount would not count as a yes vote, so I don't think there'd be an issue.

It's not a 'no' vote, it's simply not a vote. So it won't count against the trier, it just won't count for them either. Consider the fact that these guys are free-rolling from the group whilst "lone ranger" players are grinding against "connected" sit-list guys. That alone is already increasing the work load on the rest of the cartel. I can't see any justification for a "two-tiered cartel", and whilst EV requirements will negate the issue a bit, the fact still remains that being in a stable makes the scenario more luxurious for those in and trying to break in to a cartel.

You don't see an issue with the prospect of the advert "here, be my horse, you are already a decent percentage of the way in a cartel if you do so". In an ideal world, where you can't sit person A because of connections, you sit person B more to balance against that. I'm all for a cartel being the survival of the fittest so the group's elite will be sat less than the weakest, but this environment is a long way off from that utopia. Separate on skill, not on popularity. If I was a member within that cartel I'd want the "discount" to be changed at least and possibly an extra requirement that guys who have a lot of connections among triers have to make up extra sits elsewhere.

The idea of 50% votes needed that was once 50% of the people in the division had played you and thought you should be in, you got in. So there was two scenarios could play out:

1)Say you can't have discounts. This would mean that everyone needed half votes no matter what. Given there are situations that exist where it is not feasible that players will play each other (live together, same stable, not just casual acquaintances or friends, that didn't really suffice as a reason).
2)Allow discounts (not half votes, whilst it is effectively the same, I think it's misleading to describe it as such) when it wasn't feasible for two players to play each other.

From here it was a question of what better addressed the question, do 50% of people who have played them want them in. In the case of 1) more than 50% of people that were eligible to play them had to agree they should be in. In the case of 2) 50% of the people eligible to play them had to agree with their inclusion. It seemed clear that 2) better addressed the intention behind requiring 50% votes, so we had to go with that.

Fortunately the voting system is effectively redundant now so any of the problems stemming from it are inconsequential.

If the connections are so large that 1) is an issue, then drop the # of votes required. Why would you make it easier for these connected individuals?? "You know person x, sure you are already a bit in." Or..."What, you don't know anybody? 50% for you I'm afraid!!"...luckily there are EV requirements now but as mentioned these still have issues.

This isn't just a $60s issue but how do you suppose one can address the "two tiered cartel" issue please and how you plan to make entry requirements and cartel membership fair and equal for all, irrelevant of who you know.

You could drop the number of votes required so that nobody needed more. Then it becomes 'unfair' on these connected individuals as they now require the same amount of votes but have to choose from a smaller field of people. It was simply a decision based on what the idea behind needing 50% of votes was and what each of the systems achieve. Of course one sub-set of people may benefit. They (An arbitrary sub-set of people) benefit in any system created.

I don't think it's an issue that can, or even need to be addressed. Being staked comes with certain advantages, if the new way that regs operate in a lobby brings in a new variable that you have to weigh into how you perceive the advantage of staking, then you have to factor that into your decision when deciding on being staked or not. I'm not really sure what these advantages though.

note: by two tiered cartel I think you meant a distinction between those with connections (ie in stable) and those without.

The rules for the voting system are that you have to get yes votes from 50% + 1 of the division. Let's say there's 50 people in a division, so you need 26/50 votes to get in. With the current way discounts work, if someone has 10 discounts, they now need 21/40 votes to get in. If discounts worked the way you wanted them to they'd need 26/40 votes to get in. I'd agree that getting 21/40 yes votes is slightly easier than getting 26/50, but it's also obvious that getting 26/40 yes votes is going to be significantly harder than getting 26/50.

If you want to debate you can't just restate your own position, you also need to respond to the points made by the person who disagrees with you. You said that the current setup makes it easier for connected people trying to get into a cartel; i explained why i disagree with that; now you're restating that it's easier for connected people to get in. No, it's not. I've already told you why I disagree with that. I guess I'll try to explain again:

Not only is even having as much as 10 discounts (i don't think anyone has that many btw) only a slight advantage for getting in by votes, but getting in by votes itself is much more difficult than getting in by EV. I'm pretty sure that in the $60's division only 1 person ever got in by meeting the voting requirements (some people were voted in in other ways) and since the EV rules were introduced no one has gotten in by votes, instead they got in by EV. For all intents and purposes the voting system doesn't exist. Imagine that the entry requirements to some sort of club for athletes were to either lift some moderately heavy weight, OR, run 50 miles. But, for people who had connections, they had the choice of lifting that same moderately heavy weight, or running only 48 miles. Is someone with connections "already a decent percentage of the way into the club"? No, people would still all choose to lift the weight so it's a moot point.

With the current setup where most triers sit 2nd i don't see how you're going to force a division member to play more triers if the triers aren't sitting them. If the triers don't want to play a certain division member, whether it's because that member is strong or because they're connected, then that division member isn't going to have to play that many triers. If a division member is weak but not getting sat by many triers because of connections then other division members can sit them.

It is always 50%, you have to get 50% (+1) votes of whoever is elligible to vote for you. People with discounts just have fewer people who are elligible to vote for them. And like I said before no one gets in by votes atm anyways.

IMO you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

I think this is pretty fair because many discounts make game selection harder because of smaller division size

@307th, not looking for a debate, just pointing out the obvious disparity within your current system. If it is now defunct, get rid of it and then the "connection bias" will be partially reduced.

My second point is relevant though, despite the suggestion that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. Non-connected players have a greater weight of reg wars than a connected player will have. And the reason they have to work harder is because they are either staked by a smaller group or self-funded...can't see how that should be able to fly?

Blue, you said, "Being staked comes with certain advantages, if the new way that regs operate in a lobby brings in a new variable that you have to weigh into how you perceive the advantage of staking, then you have to factor that into your decision when deciding on being staked or not".

Cartels were not and should not be set up to give stakees perks. The cartels are easier to access for the stable members. The reg-wars are reduced for the stable members inside and whilst they have invaders taking up the time of non-connected players, the existing members get access to softer lobbies. It's win-win for the stables and the unconnected players take the hit from both angles. Can you start to see my concern?

If you want to convince people that you're right you need to respond to objections people make to your claims, i.e. debate.

I agree that the voting system should probably be gotten rid of entirely, not because it favours connected players very much, it doesn't, but because it doesn't really make sense to have it when no one's going to use it. It could be a red herring (someone might not do the math and go for votes instead of EV).

The divisions/cartels don't give stakees perks, players who were in a group wouldn't play each other before divisions either. Generally speaking sitlisters choose which division members they play, not the other way around, so I don't see how/why a division should force regs who "aren't getting sat enough" (either because they're in a staking group with some triers, or friends with triers, or something similar) to play more sitlisters. If there was a lot of warring going on within a division, and there were a lot of people from a staking group in that division, then that might be something a division should take action over, but that case doesn't seem like it'll happen anytime soon.

"the cartels are easier to access for the stable members"
You keep saying that, but it's absolutely not true, me and bluenowhere have both explained why. I'm a member of a staking group, when I got into the $60's division it was by EV, and i was at 7 out of about 40 required votes. How did I get "easier access" to the $60's division by being in a staking group? The only difference is that If I'd been solo I would have been at 7 out of 42 required votes. Or possibly 8 out of 42 if one of the players who i couldn't get a vote from due to being in a staking program with them turned out to be someone who gives out a vote easily to someone who deserves it. Can you give an example of someone who got into the $60's division after the EV graph rule who was helped a lot by their connections with people already in the division?

Speaking of which, you're a member of the $300 cartel; what about the $300 cartel? Afaik the only way to enter is still by votes, which is always going to be a lot more biased and political than EV requirements. If you're really worried about people with connections getting unfair advantages then wouldn't the $200's+ cartels be a much better place to look? As far as I can tell the $60's and $100's groups are both run much more fairly and less politically than $200's+.

They haven't been/aren't set up to give stakees perks. A by-product may be a benefit for a certain group (in this case stable), but it's not set-up to benefit any group other than the group itself (the advantage of being in rather than not). Any change will shift things to benefit certain people and how a certain sub-set of people benefits from any change needs to be considered by individuals moving forward.

For full disclosure I will just point out as well that I've never been staked so at no point have I stood to gain from benefits of a stable. I'm not saying this for a self-serving purpose.

we implemented the same rule as 100s div:

- Sitlist players and 60s division members can request 50 games via Skype from a 60s division member (who notifies a leader) or can ask a leader directly.
- From that point the targetted member will has to offer 3 different starting times/dates within the next 7 days.
- Players will have to play a minimum of 50 games in one session, once the sitlister/member agrees to one of those appointments (unless both agree to do a break).
- If the 60s division member is on a vacation and plays exactly 0 games during that time he can deny the request.
- The targeted player can put a sitlister/member on hold, if he has another battle ongoing at the same time.
- If one of the players is not showing up or is not completing the games without a reasonable reason, he will receive an infraction.
- After finishing the match, the sitlister/member can request another 50 games from the same player again.
- Sitlisters/members are allowed to do several requests at the same time.

why i should give my skype away like that?i dont trust anyone who i dont see and its obvious imo.seems like u made up this rule cause there are guys who dont play long sessions or something but either way if the sitlist wanna sit u it will.so no need to rush things by giving away private info

Wait how long is the minimum time period between first match of 50 games and next match of 50 games?

Nobody force you to give your skype to anyone, relax Or you'd expect to do it with fax or something since email is also a private info ?

Not a native speaker, but generally there is difference between can and must. Rule is not harming sitlist in any way, on the contrary - it helps.

If I understood it correctly, you can request new 50 as soon as you play the previous set of 50 games. Deadline will be again 7 days from the moment of the new request.

Any idea how much games the average division member plays per month?
Average games per hour? Average buy-in level?
Can you share some stats???

So once when you enter, you still play tons of regs if they request that from you? And people who want in will probably ask new regs to play them.

Yes you'd have to play sit list if they requested it, but it's those newest regs (the people who most recently crushed their way in) that are likely some of the worst to target.

yeah those are the least likely to be the worst

how does kicking people work?

Yea why would you wanna target someone who recently proved hes at least better than the worst part of the div ?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

Members are nominated for voting based on several factors by leaders (including opinions of people who battled but not only), then there is a vote opened for all members choosing from above mentioned players.