Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To start off, I have no evidence that the survey has been tampered with, pushing it either way. I don't think that Crypt does either, we were just mentioning that it's a possibility. We can't discredit the survey until there is evidence that is has been tampered with by several people.Psy you yourself said that"...people intentionally voting lower on the survey to "balance" the average with where they want things because they know the majority wants raiding to be more powerful than they do." how can people voting to change the average of the polls make for any accurate data?IMO it does not. You said "Even if the results are exaggerated, the directions are accurate. 78% for, 22% against,...." Exaggerated or not, it does not change the the fact that you are lumping 3 categories into one to get your 78% and completely disregarding that ~32% of people choose "allowed but more restricted in the past". If i was to vote and didn't want tnt cannons unless there was stronger restrictions where am i to vote? would you have included my vote in with your 78%? I am trying to state that the ~32% could have been in that same boat.... that they wanted cannons but not if they were to return back to the way they were. That is the problem with the polls... we can't ask them this because it was submitted anonymously. and true i posted that there was 5 for it, 2 with restrictions and 2 against. If cannons were to have no restrictions my vote goes for against. that changes the numbers right? what about master who was the other "restriction post". if his restriction suggestion is not meet would he still want cannons or would his vote go for against cannons. This would either come out to a 6-3 or a 5-4 split in the small forum sample. Does this sample still "reflect the same trend" as the polls?
loldBad wording, lumping everything together, and not using references to what you are talking about is something that annoys me XP.
As he states in his suggestion that "...be an option to pay extra emeralds a day to have placed blocks that were destroyed by an explosion to regenerate over time.". This is not a restriction on cannons. It would be a hindrance on towns to pay for regeneration. It also would not regenerate blocks that were not "placed blocks" in the town. This is why I have a hard time seeing this as a restriction.I don't know the difficulty of coding this, so forgive me if it's inconceivable, but If TNT cannons are included, There could, depending on if it's even possible, be an option to pay extra emeralds a day to have placed blocks that were destroyed by an explosion to regenerate over time.
I guess we both have something in common... we both find the others statement ridiculous. XPlold
I guess we both have something in common... we both find the others statement ridiculous. XP