Thread: quick question

can someone please explain the awpvote to me in full details or show me where i can read them. ive been trying to figure it out for the last couple days because there was an awpvote for d2 ( as it happens there were probly 5 awps on ct) ya know it seems reasonable to have a vote. but the vote ended up winning as 'no' but then the very next round there was another vote to ban the awp and it passed as yes. i asked the admin and they replied that not enough people voted for the first awpvote but when i looked only 15-16 voted for the second awpvote. so....not trying to be a smartass i asked if that was enough for another revote to which i got no reply. so i was just curious (not questioning admin's choices) if i could get the full rules around this THANKS

I was there when this happend as well. No won the vote (with only half the people voting). I can understand the reasoning behind it. However, there have been instances when awp votes have had maybe only 9-10 people out of 20 vote to restrict it and no revote was done. Same has happend with map votes, where few people vote then revotes are thrown up (again, understandable). Like munk was asking, what are the guidlines for this and what constitutes "enough people"...50%...75%?

Also (not to jack the thread or anything) but has there been discussion of a implementing something that would require more than just a simple majority to ban weapons, change maps, and such?

AWP, auto and mapvotes....

The ranking admin on at the time will do what he/she feels is best for the good of the server, following some guidelines we have in place for our admins to refer to when making these calls. If a map vote, awp vote, auto vote passes or fails, then again, the cycle repeats and it is up to the ranking admin whether or not the vote should be put up again or not. If a map vote for a really bad map wins, then perhaps the admin knows this map will clear the server and puts up a vote for a more popular map. If an AWP vote fails, and players are allowed to AWP however the admin realizes it is continuing to create more "lone wolf" snipers, and take away from teamplay, become an unfair advantage for the winning team or in general feels that the AWP is being abused, then, according to the guidelines in place, they will do what is best for the population of the server as a whole. If the server population really wanted to keep the AWP, then the vote would have been to keep it in play both times. The only thing I have an issue with is putting up back to back votes. Our admins SHOULD know this is looked down upon. What was the date/time this all happened?

Originally Posted by ALPINESTAR

Originally Posted by Bueller

AWP, auto and mapvotes....

The ranking admin on at the time will do what he/she feels is best for the good of the server, following some guidelines we have in place for our admins to refer to when making these calls. If a map vote, awp vote, auto vote passes or fails, then again, the cycle repeats and it is up to the ranking admin whether or not the vote should be put up again or not. If a map vote for a really bad map wins, then perhaps the admin knows this map will clear the server and puts up a vote for a more popular map. If an AWP vote fails, and players are allowed to AWP however the admin realizes it is continuing to create more "lone wolf" snipers, and take away from teamplay, become an unfair advantage for the winning team or in general feels that the AWP is being abused, then, according to the guidelines in place, they will do what is best for the population of the server as a whole. If the server population really wanted to keep the AWP, then the vote would have been to keep it in play both times. The only thing I have an issue with is putting up back to back votes. Our admins SHOULD know this is looked down upon. What was the date/time this all happened?

Question.. When u say two votes back to back... do you mean an awp vote, then an auto vote right after?

I think he means, when an awp vote loses (meaning the no vote wins) the admin puts the awp vote up again only seconds after.

Bueller I'm pretty sure I know who it was, but it wasnt as if the vote lost then he put it right back up for people to vote yes. I think only half the people voted, and the admin said not enough people had voted (which makes sense I guess), so he put it up again so everyone would vote. My only question was the consistency of this action/rule. I've seen votes go through with less than half the people voting, but since the vote was a generally popular outcome, no revote was put up. Awp/auto votes are NEVER re-done if they win, regardless of the number of votes. If that's how it's done then, that's just the way it's going to be. We just wanted to know if there could be some consistency for the votes and the process, without having too much personal bias influencing when or why the vote is put up and how many times.

Originally Posted by QuickLightning53

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Also (not to jack the thread or anything) but has there been discussion of a implementing something that would require more than just a simple majority to ban weapons, change maps, and such?

It might be a good idea but what exactly would you have decide it then?

Good question. Normally I Would say have a revote with the 2 or 3 maps that were only 1 or 2 votes behind the winner, but that would interrupt the flow of the game, and most likely would require complicated programming. An example would be: a map vote with the top 3 maps having near the same amount of votes. Dust2 6, inferno 4 votes, italy 5 votes, and the rest of the votes spread out 1 or so each over other random maps. Well on a 20 person server (that is full) dust 2 was only voted on by 30% of the server, yet it wins so in theory 70% of the people are left unhappy. Awp/Auto votes are pretty straight forward with only two options, so naturally the majority will get what they voted for (assuming they actually look at the vote instead of simply pressing 1). I know how everyone feels about the awp/auto on this server, so I'm sure this wont be looked into, but for the sake of democracy on ttp, I might as well try. Since it's only a 2 option vote (yes/no), an 11-9 vote means the awp is restricted. You would normally look at a vote and say well it was voted to be restricted so the population wanted it that way, which isnt true. Nearly half of the people lose out because of a simple majority rule. I would say that maybe it should be more than just a simple majority vote. Like I said this probably wont go through simply because it's most likely complicated to implement and may be a bit much. Also, you dont need to post how you feel about the weapon(s), we already know, so stick to the subject at hand.


The method above for banning weapons is the same method used by congress to pass laws and/or ratify the constitution. 2/3 majority vote to pass a bill to the next house, then 2/3 majority vote to pass a bill onto the president. 3/4 majority vote in the same manner to ratify the constitution (I believe). Just a little history lesson for you guys. Next up..FRACTIONS!!

I agree with what rock says, there needs to be a majority win for the awp vote like 3/4 majority or something. I can't count how many times an awp vote passed with 10 people voting yes, and 9 no which then leaves half the server unhappy. Also you can tell me its random but please dont bs me whenever there is a tie for the awp vote then it always gets banned, and it says its a random choice "lies". One awp per team idea was ruled out, but can't we try the majority vote for awp's since their popularity is slightly increasing. Also bueller I don't agree with your lone wolf labeling of the awper. Whenever I have been on the server the awp whether its being used by me or anybody else has been used primarily to call which bombsite the team should attack, and also help get some longrange picks. Exteremly rare occasions has there been an awper who has played the lone wolf card, but then again they aren't regs and don't make in ttp.

wow i wasnt really trying to turn this post into a big discussion i was simply asking the rules. As with the date and time of this incident im not sure it was last week in the afternoon sometime. As for banning the awp all together i am big time against that. Yes i am one of those people that say its part of the game. But then again it can be annoying sometimes with the lone wolves. But awps can be a huge part of teamplay also, like covering your team as they storm into a bombsite.

i gotta agree with pimp on pleasing the majority. it would be way to difficult to please every group of 3 or 4 with their own ideas, especially cocky css players :P But i have to add if the awp vote does pass with only 10 votes or so then if the players start to ask for another awp vote it should atleast be considered, maybe not if its only one or two, but if there are 5 people asking for a revote shouldnt it be considered? I mean on italy the ct side gets stacked sometimes and allowing the ts to awp would help even it out quite a bit (bad example but atleast there is one) Awps can be used to even the score out a bit, yeah, but when they are taken away it can go right back to the ass-whooping that they were trying to even out.