Why does a 3-0 vote not go through in a 5v5 If 2 people decide they don't want to vote? That is literally refusing to exercise your Privilege to vote, ergo making the vote a successful 3/3 vote. How does this not make sense? If I don't vote in an election my vote is automatically counted against someone?
This is stupid riot, please fix. Either vote or you get no say.
Kai Guy1 votesI'm down, but premade groups now only get 1 vote. Because cheese trolling of being in a winning game only for the 3 man to LOOLOLOLOLOLOL ff would irritate me greatly.
KoreanEzMode1 votesThen vote no.. by that logic a 4man premade will always have their vote. I'm saying if 3 people vote yes, and the other 2 dont vote at all, the vote fails as a 3-0 vote.
Kai Guy1 votes4 man premade do tend to always have their votes currently, I have seen this FF forced majority in action before, don't want it to be more common place. Its irritating.
FOR JUSTICE1 votespicture this:
I go to your house right now and have a vote on how many of you agree to free ice cream, but i can only get the vote of your father, mother, and 1 sibling, but DONT get your vote or another siblings vote because you both refused to answer at all. at least 70% of the vote must be "yes, I want free ice cream" in order to give you that free ice cream. because you both abstained from the vote, that means only 3 votes were cast, out of a total family of five that I was originally intent on collecting. that's only 60%.
now i could just say screw it and give the ice cream anyway, but 40% of the family potentially disagrees with the notion, (because I never actually got their opinion) so is that actually fair?
the same principle applies to the /FF vote.
Anastaecia1 votespicture this:
I go to your house right now and have a vote on how many of you agree to free ice cream, but i can only get the vote of your father, mother, and 1 sibling, but DONT get your vote or another siblings vote because you both refused to answer at all. at least 70% of the vote must be "yes, we want free ice cream" in order to give you that free ice cream. because you abstained from the vote, that means only 3 votes were cast, out of a total family of five, that's only 60%.
now i could just say screw it and give the ice cream anyway, but 40% of the family potentially disagrees with the notion, so is that actually fair?
the same principle applies to the /FF vote.
Your analogy is so messed up it's funny.
Who doesn't want free ice cream?
Why should the whole family have to decide whether they all get free ice cream or they don't?
Let's say that your little story makes sense for sake of argument, 40% is...wait for it...the minority.
FOR JUSTICE2 votesits not to be taken literally ofc XD. just substitute free ice cream for the sweet release of death as you finally leave that pubstomp we call a match in league (its not as sweet, but just as satisfying to get the hell out)
because someone may be, say allergic or something stupid like that (in leagues case, they might feel like its still recoverable)
40% is actually still a pretty big chunk even if its the minority escpecially early on
Anastaecia1 votes
its not to be taken literally ofc. jus substitute free ice cream for getting out of a ranked game via an FF vote (its not as sweet, but just as satisfying to get the hell out)
because someone may be, say allergic or something stupid like that (in leagues case, they might feel like its still recoverable)
40% is actually still a pretty big chunk even if its the minority
Then don't use it. If you want an analogy to hold water, it has to be ANALOGOUS. You can't compare apples to oranges at they say. I don't know anyone who doesn't want free ice cream...but I do know not everyone wants out of a game (some are doing well, so they want to try and carry, some want practice playing from behind, some are just trolling).
I don't think you understand what I was saying. Why does the whole family have to either have ice cream or not as a group? Why can't 4 have ice cream and the allergic one have cake? Again, apples and oranges.
"pretty big chunk" - That means nothing. It is the minority. Less people wanted what the outcome is. Makes no sense.
HEY, do you 100 people want to go to a baseball game or a concert. OH, 40 want to go to the game...the game it is.
[sg-lux-2]
Lord of Math1 votesI second this motion, when the early surrender option first came out and we had four people say yes, and I would just not vote because I figured it had already been approved, but it failed.
KoreanEzMode1 votesI Believe most of you are reading this entirely wrong. You are commenting as if the vote is 3-2. No, I'm talking about when the vote is 3-0 as in 2 team members decided not to vote. The vote will FAIL 3-0. that makes no sense at all. If you didnt vote then why should your silence effect those that did cast their vote?