joke_slayer

these riots are absolutely disgraceful whether they had a legitimate reason to be upset or not, they completely lost the support of every reasonable person in the country, a lot of these rioters don't have a clue what they are doing, they are destroying their local communities and businesses that are their only job opportunities while pretending to have a cause, while they really have no idea what is going on, eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424 seriously, how can they justify doing something like this..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYuMPw6Yi3k

I voted no because after seeing how jagex dealt with the problems of 26/76king, merch clans, and how they had already started going soft on bots, I really did not trust them when they said thay would be willing and able to deal with the issues, and now the bot problem is so much worse than I was expecting it to get. With limited trade, a very large majority of bots were simply gaining exp/money for that player, and, though they were a problem, didn't have such a big impact, chins and green dragons were the main places for bots, and now even turoths are more crowded than green dragons were. Now bots are a lot different, on top of these training bots, there are bots that gather money for RWTing, or to give to a main, and now they have taken over a lot of training spots that no one would have thought they could before, including frost dragons, aviansies, sorceress garden, etc. and as a result have greatly damaged my main sources of income so no, I do not regret my vote don't get me wrong, I did miss some aspects of free trade: pkers were a lot less irrtating than pkers when doing clues, they were a lot harder to find, when they saw clue gear they were less likely to attack, but if they did they were more likely to kill you, making clue hunting in wild a bit more exciting however these positives don't even come close to outweight the negatives I really don't like the way jagex has started to go in the last year or so, whether its Mod MMG (though I'm pretty sure he's been around much longer), the corporate investors or whoever

not really, you can do it immediatly after, you just don't get exp reward

O well, turns out you were wrong, cheer up Harold, its not the end of the world o wait :-P

Thank you, I appreciate it. I was a little worried that no one seemed to understand why I do it. This is Tip.It, after all, and so I was expecting a more balanced response, I suppose you could say. I feel that any significantly high-level player who plans to someday earn the Completionist Cape (t) would realise how crazy completing 5k games actually is, and how it's totally unrealistic to expect anyone to play that many games "legitimately" while trying to meet all of the other requirements at the same time - without burning out and quiting. Whew. :blink: I'd like to think I'm a reasonably high level player (access to max cape), and once I finish exams and get members back I'd like to slowly start working towards completionist cape (t), because I play this game for fun, and actually enjoy doing most of the stuff it requires, and that includes castle wars, and I intend to play the castle wars games I need legitimately. When I set myself big goals on rs I try to make it so that I will be having fun doing most it, and making sure it only includes a small amount of of stuff I don't really like (25 chimp ices not going to be fun, but that can get done in like a day) since like 90% of the requirement for the trim is castle wars, there is no reason to go for it if you don't enjoy castle wars if you play the 5k games because you actually enjoy it, or playing in a way that makes it fun (such as camping somewhere and killing noobs if thats what you like), and don't go all out trying to get the cape asap, and alternate between the different things (say every 50 games go do a run at BA or something), you won't burn out and quit, simple as that

for people to win in a minigame or whatever, there have to be people who put the effort in: if nobody did any work at trawler, trawler would sink therefore people work to "win" at the trawler minigame, they stop the trawler from sinking and deserve getting the rewards if it everyone was a leecher, the trawler would sink and they wouldn't get the reward, so you didn't do anything to deserve the rewards that the other people worked for if people get away with leeching, and get rewards for it, some people who do the work will be like "hey i can get same reward without doing anything" and they stop helping if enough people do that, the win rate goes down, and people who worked their backsides off will have to spend more resources, and be rewarded less for their efforts, does that seem fair to you? in games like castle wars its a bit different, but it still essentially boils down to you not doing anything is wasting space on your team, meaning that the people doing all the work will have to work harder to get less rewards say there are 2 teams of 20 in a castle wars game, with one team containing 5 leechers then the game effectively becomes 15 vs 20, and the legit people in the team with leechers will have to work a lot harder, and be a lot more organised than the other team to have a reasonable chance of winning do you see why people get incredibly annoyed (and rightfully so) at leechers EDIT: and trimmed completionist cape argument is so bs, it doesn't have any bonus stats compared to normal completionist cape therefore you have no reason to get it if don't enjoy doing all the content properly, so why should other people have to deal with you wanting such an item, just because you don't care about winning or losing doesn't mean that the people who do all the work don't either

so, more than half the online people before updates were bots nice detection system jagex

that is wrong, from the result we can say people didn't want AV but i know several who voted no because they thought that doing so would mean it would be more likely that a more radical reform, such as PR could enter the debate using the result of a referendum between 2 bad systems to lock out any talk of all other options is not the way forward

orly this was definatly a predictable reaction, and why I think that people voting no just because they wanted PR, or some other system were dead wrong both campagins were awful the yes campaign was weak and didn't concentrate on the facts enough the no campaign was a very negative, and almost entirely fact free campaign i saw no ads around for the yes campaign, and a full 2 page ad in the paper for the no campaign on the election, that was simply attacking the lib dems and saying that AV will cost 250 mil, 90 of which for the referendum, and it can all be made back by voting NO. I hope this vote will not mean the end of any possible electoral reform, and if the conservatives or labor use this result to kill all of any reform it would be a disgrace, putting up a system that no one really asked for up for a vote and use that result to exclude AV+, PR, or any other system is just shameful

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system. Old fashioned broken system that's worked fine for centuries. things change, just because because it worked fine in the past doesn't mean it works fine right now, or that it won't get worse in the future there was no need for AV when there were only 2 parties, now that we have 3 main parties (though lib dems have epically collapsed), and other smaller parties starting to come through and getting a reasonable amount of support, the validity of the voting system needs to be reconsidered

as a student, the first political issue i really cared about was the tuition fees fiasco a few months ago..... that as a rude awakening to the world of politics <_< still quite a long time to wait for the results of the referendum though, counting for it will start at 4PM tomorrow, after most of the local results will have been declared well time to to just sit on the bbc website, with the TV on through the night and enjoy the lib dems getting a (imo) well deserved thrashing in the local elections :shades:

I wasn't aware that was needed to vote for one person. No, this is the Lib Dems knowing that a coalition deal with the Conservatives was politically unpalatable so they used the deal to forge themselves a better position for the next general election by effectively rigging the voting system. Do the Lib Dems care about the Greens? No; they're political rivals, why would they? This was a referendum on a voting system, ideally what party is supporting what should have no bearing on the result, and everyone should vote for the system that they think is fairer <rant> The lib dems have been completely pathetic during this parliament, they gave up pretty much everything they had promised to get this feeble compromise of a referendum, and if this doesn't get voted through they will have absolutely nothing to show for throwing large amounts of their voters under the bus. They have absolutely no idea of how a coalition works, that you form a coalition with a party with which you have at least some agreement with. They have let the conservatives do everything they wanted, while getting a much larger amount of the blame for everything that was unpopular. They absolutely suck at politics, and deserved to be dragged out of parliament kicking and screaming, and be pelted with rotten eggs and tomatos at the next elections. But that should have no bearing on the campaign! What has really annoyed me about this was the campaigning, both sides have been guilty of some bad stuff, though the NO campaign has been much worse, it has spread lies ( http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett ) And what was even more effective from them, they used the massive unpopularity of the lib dems to get votes. This really annoys me because a campaign on a voting system should be based on what will actually change for the better/worse as a result, not lower itself to saying "vote YES/NO to make X mad", that is just wrong, and I am unhappy that this stuff has been used more than the actual merits/issues of the system. </end rant> Just wanted to get that out of my system, was not directed at anyone on here, just not happy with the people responsible for the main NO campaign. The points raised by the regular posters on this thread were decent enough, some people think that being able to have your vote reassigned is fairer, some people don't. AV is undoubtedly more complicated than FPTP, some people think its still pretty straight forward and that this won't be a problem, others disagree, we all have different views, and thats how it should be. That being said, this is a referendum to choose the voting system we think is fairer/better, personally I don't think either of the choices was particularly good, just that AV was a bit better than FPTP (as you can probably tell from my previous posts). If we (the public) think AV is better then AV will be voted in otherwise it will not (at the moment this looks more likely :| ), and I shall accept the result either way. I am just upset that the campaign outside these forums was focused so much on mudslinging rather than the actual issue. Look forward to having similar debates on here in future ;-) .

not really, Australia and Fiji both use a different version of the one that is being proposed here, in both these countries you have to list a preference for all the candidates, or let the party you voted for cast your second preference votes for you, this is the main problem with AV in Australia, the 6/10 figure for Australia wanting to get rid of it comes from a rather biased poll, where a system like the one proposed in Britain wasn't an option as for Fiji, they have the added problem that they want vote reform in part because people get to vote in 2-3 different constituencies, also bear in mind that there was a military coup in Fiji in 2006, and the constitution was dissolved in 2009, so what is being done is not necessarily the will of the people and another thing, when women first started getting the vote, there were only 2-3 countries that had votes for women, didn't that say something? a more accurate comparison would be a race where the last car was eliminated at the end of every lap, and the last car on track would be declared the winner these car racing/horse racing/running comparisons are complete bs, because if you have to outright win a race you, it won't just be Party A 45%, Party B 25%, Party C 20%, Party D 10%, therefore party C win, that is just downright stupid If there are only 2 options, then AV simply boils down to FPTP, so you could also say we are using AV to vote on AV The problems with FPTP arise when there are more than 2 serious options to chose from, not the case with a referendum The point of AV is that you get to say, "Well I really like this candidate, but if he can't get in I would prefer that this other candidate gets elected" 33% for and 67% doesn't necessarily mean that 33% of the voters want them in power and 67% would rather die than want them in power it could mean 33% really want them in power, 30% would be happy with them in power even if they liked another candidate more, and 37% would rather die imo something like this would be so much better than risk getting a party elected that 33% of people really like, but 60% of people would rather die than let them in power AV "Increases the likelihood of coalition governments. There would need to be a shift to more government by consensus and compromise, particularly in the period following elections when coalition or other agreements were being negotiated. This consequential change to the nature of government formation is a key consideration in the debate about whether PR should be introduced for Westminster, including the subsequent changes to the nature of policy development." Source: Page 9 Assuming AV actually does make coalitions more likely (even though Australia under AV has had less coalitions than the UK in the same time period, where as Canada has had a lot more coalitions by using FPTP) if there is no clear preference of a specific party, then a coalition is more representative of the population certainly better than a party getting 40% of the votes getting 60% of the seats, while a party with 25% of the vote would only get 9% of the seats and just because Nick Clegg has no clue of how coalitions are meant to work does not mean coalitions are necessarily a bad thing, Britain had a coalition government during the second world war, are you saying that they were useless and didn't get anything done in that time? and by the way the bit you quoted is talking about PR, AV may give a more proportional distribution of seats, but it won't be anything like PR

the new system would help smaller parties with the current system, the party that gets most votes wins, and that is the end of it, everyone else gets ignored, so people often vote for the one of the 2-3 big parties in their constituency to keep the one they really hate out, this sometimes even happens when there is more support in the constituency for a smaller party, where people don't vote for it because they don't realize this and think it would be safer to vote for one of the big parties with the new system, people will be able to vote for whatever small party they like and still put one of the big parties they can deal with as second or third preference. then when the votes are counted, the party with the least amount of votes gets eliminated and their vote gets redistributed according to their second preferences, so the people who voted for them will still have a say, while the totals of first preference votes will show the real support for the smaller parties, which will most certainly be greater under the new system. this means that people can show their true support for the smaller parties and still keep out the party they hate, this will lead to a much greater first preference vote for smaller parties (in some places even greater than for 1 or 2 of the 3 main parties), and if they do well enough, they could even get in power if they get enough second and third preference votes (this will not work for small parties that are to the extremes such as the BNP, because people either love them or hate them, therefore they may get an increase in first preference votes, but everyone else would hate them therefore they would get no more votes and would eventually be eliminated)

it is fairer because people can make their voices heard properly, rather than voting for a candidate thats not their favourite, just to keep another one out http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/04/do-av-votes-count-more-than-once.html and with regards to the australian voting system http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/04/a-summary-of-the-misrepresentations-of-australias-voting-system.html

considering the whole point of introducing AV is to make the elections fairer and the MPs more representitive, what kind of argument would you accept i agree that AV is not the best/fairest/most representitive system out there, but it is much better than FPTP

It is all very well and good for you to continually tell me that over and over again. What you need to do to in any way convince me is take a look at mine, as well as other peoples, arguments on this matter and respond to them. This hasn't been done. They are not representitive of the peoples MOST FAVOURED views, so if 40% adamantly want A, 25% adamantly want B and 35% adamantly want C, then A should win because they have a majority of people who would elect them and only them. With AV, B would go out here, and for arguments sake say they all side with B. That way A is 40% and C is 60%. However, that 25% from B do not want C to win as much as they want B to, and so 25% of that support is 'half-hearted', for lack of a better phrase, and not actual true representation of their views. AV is a system whereby smaller parties who get less votes (10%) in inital rounds can beat parties who get 30+% in initial rounds. This seems fundamentally unfair. Again, this thread doesn't really work if the only points being debated are minor points that are debated down right to the smallest little details. in that case what do you think is going to happen in the next elections an increasing percentage of B voters will start voting for C because they would rather see C in power than A, and over the course of a few elections C will get 41+% and A will stay on 40% therefore C will win, while B will just be ignored now you may ask, if that is the case why change the system well, in this case B will be ignored, if more people start liking party B over party C, to the point where B becomes more popular than C, B will not be voted in because people will not realise how popular B has become and will keep voting C to keep A out With AV people will be able to say that they prefer B over C, and in case B doesn't win they want to see C in power, and if B happens to become more popular, they will get elected under AV, and not under FPTP

if you are referring to fiji the av system used in fiji is different to that being proposed in the uk people have a choice to either grade 75%+ of the candidates, or vote for their party and then if their party loses their party choses where to allocate those second choice votes (which leads to backroom deals before the elections since these parties had a big say in the final outcome of the election, this will not be the case in the UK as the candidates will actually have to convince the voters to put them down as first, second, etc. and its not up to the parties), and these are the reasons why av isn't very popular in fiji the form of av that is being proposed lets you rank as many or as few candidates as you like whether you only rank 1, or you rank all of the ones in your constituency, and the party you vote for will have no say as to where your second votes are allocated (there is some room for parties to encourage tactical voting here, but it won't be as bad as what happens with fptp) also in 2006 there was a military coup in fiji, and in 2009 the constitution was suspended, so whatever the government of fiji is trying to do, keep this in mind when you hear that fiji is going to stop using AV http://yestofairervotes.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/in-a-right-old-fiji-fudge/ http://epress.anu.edu.au/fiji/pdf/note.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Fiji#Voting_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_of_Fiji

ceremonies like this are definatly interesting to watch though i must say i'm a bit disappointed it didn't end up like this

eventuallly, after exams and stuff

finally there

..... and this is why they shouldn't have started releasing bts again

indeed hopefully will reach 99 dunging this month

wanted to get this a while ago, but dung came out a couple of days too early -.-