Ellimist, my pal, you'll have to pardon my tardiness, but I thought we were done here. 😕
So first you say that Valkorion won the last three rounds [by plurality] but still lost because of “weird and unnecessary rules”, which obviously means you think plurality > run-off.Responding in order of paragraphs:Then when I explain why the plurality system doesn’t work, you say that the run-off isn’t perfect either and we should use like a 1st, 2nd, etc. place ranking system or something. In other words, you abandon comparing plurality vs. run-off to instead suggest a third alternative.
When pressed on how this would help Valkorion given that the run-off is closer to a continuous system and Valkorion does much worse than a plurality, implying that a more continuous system goes against him, you say you aren’t claiming it would.
So you go from “Valkorion should have won because he won a plurality” to “well we could use [the very opposite of plurality voting]” to “well that system might not have Valkorion win anyway”.
First, yes, I do believe plurality > runoff.
Second, reductio ad absurdum. You made the point that plurality doesn't work due to scientific inaccuracy. I rebutted by pointing out that there's scientific inaccuracy in your methodology. That if we truly wanted scientific accuracy, we would have to use legitimate polling methods (i.e. NOT a tournament). Citing the need for scientific accuracy neutralizes your argument completely. What's more, we see your position further neutralized via my advocacy of the airtight conclusion that "there is no forum consensus, but a plurality favors Y."
Third, I've made no claims nor implications for how Valkorion would do in any other system besides a plurality. Any neutral party is welcome to verify for themselves simply by scrolling up. Ergo, strawman fallacy.
Fourth, see above. My position has been consistent from the beginning, which is why you feel the need to use terms like "implies" and "suggest" to doctor my position as opposed to simply citing what I've actually said on the subject. Of course, when you actually do cite what I've said on the subject, we run into the following problem:
Of course, if you now deny that you ever said Valkorion “should” have won but were just describing that he won a plurality then that would beg the question to why you said:Ellimist, my buddy, your issue is pretty easy to explain. I think Valkorion should have won because I think the determination should have been made as a result of him winning a plurality of the vote. Pure. Simple. Straightforward. The only spin is any suggestion that I believed he would prevail under a non-plurality system. I have no f-cking clue. Blatantly false and you know it. Biggest, fattest, juiciest strawman argument you've made in your life buddy! 😂By my count, Valky-boy has decisively won the last three rounds now [note: under a plurality system, you say], weird and unnecessary vote-voiding rules withstanding. So if anything, neither side of fanboys has anything to be grumbling about._
Time to get a move on!
Yes, but the ~Mace fraction ranks Mace higher than the ~Valkorion fraction ranks Valkorion.Which would go back to the points I've already raised: (1) Any points raised about polling accuracy while acknowledging that level of bias are inconsistent. (2) If a majority here broadly holds one faction over another, there's really no need to have intra-era competitions. A simple raise of hands for the TOR/PT era camps would suffice if said divide is of concern and would save a lot of time. ✅
Anyway, I broke my promise to not bother responding *snip*Don't bother responding. Outcome will never change. What I said in plain English is never going to mean anything besides what I said in plain English. Take care buddy! 😊