Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll

[chopper]

Sorry to intrude again, since I'm probably not well informed about the situation.
I just want to comment on one remark.

oh so, your logic tells us mjolnir .... if there were 3 people running for president 1 got 1 million votes, the other got 1 million and 1 votes and the other 1 million 500 votes.... that the one with 1 million 500 votes should be like oh hell no... why? cause the other 2 peoples votes accumulated upto more thats why.

I live in a country where multiple candidates run for president.
If one won 1.5 million and say 37%, the other one 1.4 mil and about 35% and the third got 1 mil and about 28%.. Guess what would happen?
First two guys would go in the second round, where people would vote for one of those.
So yeah, his logic is actually quite fine. More then fine, if I might add.

If you have 35% for a NO side, and 35 + 20 for yes (just different solutions) - voters should get another vote where they would just vote for YES or NO.
And if YES won, the choice which got most votes would be implemented. Or if you want to make it even more complicated, two choices (from YES side) would be put in another (third vote) to chose between two choices with most votes again.
Why is this fair? Well, you can have one conservative idea (candidate) which won, say, 37%. And on the other side you can have 2 liberal candidates with 35+28%.
So, you are giving your voters another chance to merge their votes.
In my country conservative candidate always gets the most votes in the first row, but looses badly in the second one - because of the merging liberal votes.
And that is democracy, short and simple.

Presidential elections were a bad example, as most countries do work as I described.
If you have 3+ candidates you will always have a second row, unless someone won 50% + 1 vote in the first one.
And this is not the case now.

On another note.. Are you, arguing guys (silent, lohingren... I know Mjolnir is), registered on developer forum?
If yes, why are you arguing in public? What's the point?
I mean, yeah, sometimes you can convince the crowd to rape one guy and make him do otherwise. But this just looks silly.
And it should be forbidden.
If not, ignore the upper.

My suggestions was to say yes to increased damage (obviously)

and run the 2nd part of the poll again with the 3 options that got most votes....

to some this is "being sore looser", oh well.

I think my way is better, since you can end up with yet another vote if you put 3 again. Put just yes/no and then another vote if yes wins.
In that new vote you can put even 3 (though I'd go with two).
I mean, your way is maybe more democratic, but it's way too time consuming.
Yes/No = saves time if "No" wins. Gets you trough if "Yes" wins and you are already one step closer to your goal.
In your way you can end up with 40% for no, 30 for one yes and 30 for another, and then you are stuck again.



And no, I am not defending anyone, I just wanted to clarify that little thingy as I feel that I am qualified for such a thing, as a student of political science.
Now do as you wish:P

My votes are still :

1. Yes
2. Yes, by reducing their refire rate.

Luvyaall!

---

It is every Corsair's responsibility to die a beautiful death in defense of Crete, regardless of how OORP or how capwhoring the opposition is. Launch your fighter, joust the battlecruisers and die a beautiful death. Then, drink it down in the bar.

Can't let you bash folks in your sig Chopper-Del