Should I announce the winners of the primaries right away or after they are all over? - Page 2 - VGF

Romplayer · 11-09-2004, 10:38 AM

But why do you think it's unfair to announce the winners first?
Primaries are hold first, so why not announce the winner first?
The candidates of the last party can work on their campaign for 3 weeks from now, then the primary starts.
The first party is just the other way: Primaries now, then 3 weeks.

So what does it change? You could also call it unfair that the last party has to wait so long until their election starts!

It doesn't hurt the candidates of the last party if the candidates of the first party know now who won!

Introbulus · 11-11-2004, 12:13 PM

Rommer, that thread you posted was mine, and I think it's safe to say that, right now, it does NOT match the elections outcome perfectly. Take a look at the projections for the Neglectocrats. Notice how it doesn't match up against the other poll? Notice how Yoshi came in third, while Koopa got ten votes? Polls are just a projection of who is expected to win the primaries or election. You might've noticed it or not, but on the MSN poll of the debates, Kerry won each time, and who do we have as president? Bush, no less. Remember, there are those who go to NC, but don't post in the forums. So it's quite possible that people vote entirely different from what we see today.

The point of holding it out makes sense because that way, it's left up to the campaign manager whether they should continue running ads or wait until the end.

Jonathan Resop · 11-11-2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Romplayer:
So what does it change? You could also call it unfair that the last party has to wait so long until their election starts!

It doesn't hurt the candidates of the last party if the candidates of the first party know now who won!

Yeah, see, it IS already unfair that the last parties have to wait longer before they have their primaries.

I donno, personally, I just think it would be an unfair advantage for the first party to know their candidate for president a full three weeks before the last party does. Then the first party's candidate can do all sorts of planning weeks ahead of the other candidate, such as select a running mate, do all sorts of campaigning with the knowledge that you already won, ect.

You're only arguement to announce it right now is that you don't want to make election stuff for the next three weeks and then find out that you lost. Well, just so you know, every party has this problem, even the ones that go last. For the people in the last party, they will be campaigning for the next three weeks, and just as well could find out that they lost, and all of their work would have been for "nothing", like you claim yourself.

So really, I see no reason to announce the winners now. This way there is little difference between who goes first and who goes last. Everyone has the same risks, ect.

Then, after they are all done, I will announce the winners, and then everyone will be able to start from scratch will a full, free month to campaign some more.

Yeah, that sounds good. So do you understand, Romplayer? I want to make sure you understand, since you're the one who's brought up the most complaints. Basically, it's fair to make you wait until the end to know, because the other parties will also have to wait until the end to know. The fact that you could be campaigning for three weeks and find out that you lost is no different from someone in the last party campaigning three weeks and finding out that they lost. You both lose just as much time.

That sounds fair to me. Let me know if this still sounds unfair in any way, please. I want to do what's best and right and fair for everyone, heh.

Heh, the whole thing is sort of moot anyway, since no one is campaigning, heh.-jay

Romplayer · 11-12-2004, 07:56 PM

Yes, i understand what you mean.
But ... well just do it this way. It's just a 'game', so why complaining.

But something to say to that:

Quote:

Originally posted by Perrin Aybara:
Well, just so you know, every party has this problem, even the ones that go last. For the people in the last party, they will be campaigning for the next three weeks, and just as well could find out that they lost, and all of their work would have been for "nothing", like you claim yourself.

Well no, that's not right.
With campaigning the three weeks before the primaries, they can still bring people on their side. So it could change the primaries.
But if I do anything, it won't change them, because they are done already.

Okay, understand?

I'll restart campaining on Monday anyway. And then it's only 2 weeks until the winners are announced, so not that terrible.

And yeah, in fact nearly nobody updates any more.
Probably they just have no ideas any more for the campaign.
3 months is a bit too much for a presidency election

By the way: What was the election like 4 years ago?

Jonathan Resop · 11-12-2004, 09:21 PM

Well, that's not really my point. My basic point is that either way if you're the first party or last party, you're still putting in 3 weeks of "work" into your candidate, and either way you lose those three weeks of "work" when you lose. The people who are going last have just as much to lose as you are. Don't think of it as campaigning for a primary that has already ended. Think of it as campaigning for your character as a whole, for the general election and everything.

I'm convinced that this method is 99% fair to everyone. So I'm sticking with it. Heh. Like I said, the main thing that I'm concerned about is with this way, everyone takes the same amount of risk by campaigning now, and everyone finds out who wins at the same time.

Does that sort of make sense at all? Heh. Let me know if it's still a problem, please. I can discuss it some more.

Heh, the election was no where near this complex the last time we did it. You can still see the Election 2000 page on the site. Basically it was just a simple thing where I picked all of the candidates, I did all of the campaigning, and I had everyone just vote.-jay

[ November 12, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]

Codiekitty · 11-12-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Romplayer:
Second: This thread shows anyway, who will win in Radical Extremists and Neglectocrats.

No it doesn't. It gives you an idea of the top three or so people who may win. I'm sure not everybody's voted in that topic (I know I haven't, and that reminds me. I have to vote in the second primary). There's also the people who just don't come here to the NC Message board, and only vote through E-Mail.

Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

11-09-2004, 10:38 AM	#21
Romplayer Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Germany Gender: Posts: 643 Thanks: 1 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts Points: 3,196.01 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 3,696.01 Donate	But why do you think it's unfair to announce the winners first? Primaries are hold first, so why not announce the winner first? The candidates of the last party can work on their campaign for 3 weeks from now, then the primary starts. The first party is just the other way: Primaries now, then 3 weeks. So what does it change? You could also call it unfair that the last party has to wait so long until their election starts! It doesn't hurt the candidates of the last party if the candidates of the first party know now who won!

11-11-2004, 12:13 PM	#22
Introbulus Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Time, Space Posts: 4,159 Thanks: 2 Thanked 19 Times in 9 Posts Points: 4,360.70 Bank: 1,217.40 Total Points: 5,578.10 Donate	Rommer, that thread you posted was mine, and I think it's safe to say that, right now, it does NOT match the elections outcome perfectly. Take a look at the projections for the Neglectocrats. Notice how it doesn't match up against the other poll? Notice how Yoshi came in third, while Koopa got ten votes? Polls are just a projection of who is expected to win the primaries or election. You might've noticed it or not, but on the MSN poll of the debates, Kerry won each time, and who do we have as president? Bush, no less. Remember, there are those who go to NC, but don't post in the forums. So it's quite possible that people vote entirely different from what we see today. The point of holding it out makes sense because that way, it's left up to the campaign manager whether they should continue running ads or wait until the end.

11-12-2004, 09:21 PM	#25
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 33,437.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 33,937.00 Donate	Well, that's not really my point. My basic point is that either way if you're the first party or last party, you're still putting in 3 weeks of "work" into your candidate, and either way you lose those three weeks of "work" when you lose. The people who are going last have just as much to lose as you are. Don't think of it as campaigning for a primary that has already ended. Think of it as campaigning for your character as a whole, for the general election and everything. I'm convinced that this method is 99% fair to everyone. So I'm sticking with it. Heh. Like I said, the main thing that I'm concerned about is with this way, everyone takes the same amount of risk by campaigning now, and everyone finds out who wins at the same time. Does that sort of make sense at all? Heh. Let me know if it's still a problem, please. I can discuss it some more. Heh, the election was no where near this complex the last time we did it. You can still see the Election 2000 page on the site. Basically it was just a simple thing where I picked all of the candidates, I did all of the campaigning, and I had everyone just vote.-jay [ November 12, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]