Breeding Season: Alpha Version 5.3 [Update 11/3/14]

[eroticgrapefruit]

I think this argument is probably headed down an annoying path. I'd just like to chime in with my 2 cents on one point brought up though - I agree that having each separate species listed is a little much. It is a good point that a lot of people might want a new species, but not all of them will want the same one. It makes it pretty difficult for a new species to win, and if a new species is what's desired by the most people I think the votes should reflect that.

However, I think it is safe to say people can have a much stronger preference with regard to gender than with regard to specifics. For example if you want bunnygirls in the game, you probably won't be too bummed if foxgirls are added instead - maybe a little more put off if alarunes are added, and certainly much more put off if catboys or dragons are added.

So I'd like to suggest having the voting options condensed into new species categories, and then just add in whatever monster has had the most progress done in that category. Masculine Male Monster (Dickwolves, buttstallions, etc.), Feminine Male Monster (Catboys, male elves, etc.), Monstrous Female Monster (Alarunes, googirls, etc.) and Humanoid Female Monster (Catgirls, harpies, etc.) would cover all of the bases nicely, I think.





On a side note I was totally in favor of male/male animations but I think I'll be turning them off until we've got something like catboys in the game, not too enthusiastic about seeing a wolf and a horse going at it. Of course we haven't seen the demons yet, so here's hoping they look something like this

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

[SapphicKatherine]

SapphicKatherine wrote:On one hand you say that it's a problem that something specific will have to wait several voting rounds, but then you suggest to put everything in categories. If "New Species" is a category, how is it decided what the new species would be? Most people aren't going to want to put money down on a feature if they aren't sure of what they're getting. If you put money down hoping for bunny girls and wound up getting an octophallus tank instead, you got your new species, but it sure isn't what you were hoping for, was it?

But the money doesn't reset each month. Say you vote for Bunnygirls, and as a result the New Species category gets into first place with $200. The month ends, and the top species, Octophallus, wins. Not what you were hoping for, no, but it's better to you than Neoteny (otherwise you would have voted for Neoteny). So say next month New Species wins again. The money that you put into Bunnygirls helps that become first place.

The advantage of this is that your donation to Bunnygirls helps the new species category in every round until Bunnygirls is chosen, so even if you vote for something like Dragon, which has hardly any votes, you are still contributing and affecting the voting each round.

Now you're skewing things the other way. Say there's a run on egg laying and it goes up to $100, but there are $50 in bunnygirls and $55 in alarunes, now the feature that should win because it has the most money gets pushed back an update because there isn't another member in the 'stuff comes out a vagina' category. Bunny girls are coming eventually, deal with it.

[MiscChaos]

Hi! I'm not here to shut this down, I'd actually encourage it since it allows for what the users see wrong with the system to come to light, but since money is involved, I can see this debate getting ugly fast. I just want to preemptively say please keep it respectful, folks. Ya'll done a good job of that so far and I merely ask it stays that way.

[LoneWolf]

Now you're skewing things the other way. Say there's a run on egg laying and it goes up to $100, but there are $50 in bunnygirls and $55 in alarunes, now the feature that should win because it has the most money gets pushed back an update because there isn't another member in the 'stuff comes out a vagina' category. Bunny girls are coming eventually, deal with it.

It's not quite that simple, unfortunately.

The whole point of suggesting categories is that there are times when the single choice with the most votes doesn't deserve to win. As an example, imagine a situation where Egg Laying is at $100, Bunnygirls at $80 and Alarunes, Lamia and Foxgirls are all at $75. Now we've got $305 spent by people who want to see another female monster, but because it's spread over four options Egg Laying still beats it under the current system. It seems fairly obvious (at least to me) that out of that $225 spent on other female monsters, at least a few of the voters would far rather see Bunnygirls added than Egg Laying. Even if it's only one in ten, that's worth another $22.50 and makes Bunnygirls the 'correct' winner.

It's still definitely possible for the category system to create an unfair winner - I'm not denying that. It's a slightly more sophisticated version, but at heart it's still just FPTP - and FPTP fails both the Condorcet winner and loser conditions. That means, by definition, that it can always spit out the wrong winner. The advantage it has over straight FPTP is that, while you can still waste votes, you can't waste as many votes. If the winning value is $100, the most you can possibly assign to a losing category is $99. Under the current system, you can assign $99 multiplied by the number of options that would go into that category.

Having said all that, I'd suggest doing it slightly differently. My preferred system would be to loosen the strict win/lose system a bit, and give Hartista some say in choosing a winner. Rather than automatically taking the top two, he could implement the winner and his choice of, say, the top five. I'm guessing 'don't piss off the people who are giving me money' would be reasonably high on his list of priorities, so that might still end up being the top two a lot of the time. It means that there's some human input into the system, though, so he can take into account things like there being a lot of demand for more female monsters, or even out the workload, or any of the other 'common sense' adjustments that you can't possibly put into an explicit voting system. (And having the top one be guaranteed to get in means that you can still buy a place for your specific fetish if you spend the money; it just means that you need first place rather than second.)

Alternately, rather than grouping the different choices into categories, you could add an explicit option to vote for a category rather than an individual idea (that is, add things like 'Add a new female monster' and 'Add a new male monster' as donation options). If that choice wins, the money in it gets reset to zero and whichever option that fits the description and currently has the most votes gets added to the game. That allows people who just want one of several similar options to donate without worrying that their votes are being wasted, and still keeps the system 100% explicit. Whatever ends up winning, you know that it's not getting an unfair advantage for just being similar to something else popular.

[deathreaper711]

Flawed logic, if I have $10 I'm willing to donate, and say Alarunes are on $50 and Bunnygirls are on $40, then at best I can make Bunnygirls equal to Alarunes. Your logic is that if I want to improve those chances I can donate more? Okay, so I have $20 to donate. My options now are either to make Bunnygirls go to $60 or Alarunes go to $70. No matter how much money you put in (unless you can afford to single-handedly send an idea to the top of the list) it is beneficial to vote for Alarunes.

And yes, of course there will be some people who want Bunnygirls much more than Alarunes who wont see it this way, but some people will, and it discourages people like me from making donations.

Wrong. It entirely depends on what you want to donate for, sure if you're wanting a species in general to win, then this logic is sound, but without this mindset then no. But considering if you personally want Bunnygirls and not Alarunes, then you wouldn't donate 20 dollars to Alarunes. Then you would have to wait until you had more money to donate or the following month when new things are added and possibly have more of a chance. Unless people actually wanted a new species and didn't care which, then your idea is feasible to group them together and choose them out of group preference like you suggested.

This is exactly my point, you're argument is based around your opinion and your preferences. Your "flaws" and opinion is completely subjective. It would take someone with the same mindset to actually see it this way. Unfortunately arguing about how you view and approach the donating system is incredibly redundant.

You haven't addressed the issue at all. While it may be possible for an idea with no donations to be popular enough to go straight to the top, that doesn't mean that all features can or will do that. The less popular ones will still be wasted votes.

The point was that it wasn't popular, it was hanging at the bottom for the longest time. Either one guy donated a huge amount by himself, or it somehow garnered popularity within a week. (Considering a donor came on here saying he had a lot of money to donate and he wanted Neoteny i suspect the former). Point being that it is an example that some can go to the top and do that. I never said all features WILL, but it is possible for the features to do that.

Personally I would be pissed if I gave $50 to one idea and somebody else gave $50 to a similar idea, and we both lost because somebody gave $70 to a different idea.

Breeds of monsters aren't a "similar" idea, unless a person views any breed of monster the same and all something they want then they should have followed your logic, and spent 50 bucks on the other "similar" idea. Considering if they want something specific, then they donate for it. If it doesn't win or is hanging a bit lower than the winners, then you wait until next month. If two people donated 50$, I'm pretty sure that if they didn't have your views on this, they would be pissed if both were grouped up, and the one they donated for, didn't win. Which makes this argument incredibly flawed, as you assume people have the same view as you, not saying there aren't, but it would have to take a similar mindset, one that disregards specifics and is happy for any addition regarding monster breeds.

Your "argument" doesn't also take into account that there are people who are willing to pay large amounts of money to boost up what they prefer to the top. Your "solution" doesn't make this possible, it simply gives them the same chance as a breed or option they didn't even want or was never donated for to begin with. Let me repeat that, this is the same for every category that would be grouped together, if an option got popular vote that had 0$ but the guy who donated 100$ made that category win in the first place, he becomes excluded and doesn't get what he paid for. He may ONE day get what he paid for, but if new breeds are put in continuously then it's very well possible it could be a long time if it's unpopular with everyone BUT that individual, or even a small amount of people. Your solution only gives a chance to people who didn't donate at all or donated very little to get what they want and have precedence or the same chance as someone who gave more. This is very unfair, and a very real problem to your "solution". As your "solution" only favors you, and people who view this like you do, which seems to be in the extreme minority.

Thanks for summarising my argument, oh wait, that wasn't what I said at all. Nice Strawman.

Your "argument" and "logic" pertains to how you as an individual view the voting, there are no problems objectively that you've stated, but subjectively. The rest was due to what you specifically stated, if you want me to quote everything you said, i very well can, but i assume you know what you yourself said.

Because a month ago I didn't realise there was anything wrong with it? And look, another Strawman.

The voting system didn't change, it's been up for what, going on three months now? Not that it subtracts validity from your argument, but considering that fact and your entire argument being around your preferences and your opinions, i did find it worth a mention.

uhhh... this doesn't address my argument at all.

uhhh... Yes it does. Read your solution and reread what i said about it.

AGAIN, you seem to think I have a problem with the content being added. I don't.

You don't? You said yourself you do. Isn't this entire argument based on the content being added and your belief that a new monster should have been added? I'm pretty sure it was, as considering, you said it yourself -

I have played your game a lot, across multiple versions, and as such I am pretty bored of the content that is already in the game, so I want to vote for more content to be added. I don't have either of the fetishes that are being voted for (Neoteny and Futanari) and I'm straight, so I M/M animations don't appeal to me. What I really want is for a new species to be added in. I don't care too much which one, but Bunnygirls is probably my top choice.

You don't consider the fetish content additions "content" here. But just above this, you say you have no problem with the "content" being added. This is a huge contradiction. This is also about the content being added as you state it right here. So you're obviously lying or simply don't remember what you yourself said. This is about the content not appealing to you, and you wanting a new breed of monster being put in. Who says this? You. You built an argument around this fact, one that brings a solution for YOUR tastes and how YOU view this.

The advantage of this is that your donation to Bunnygirls helps the new species category in every round until Bunnygirls is chosen, so even if you vote for something like Dragon, which has hardly any votes, you are still contributing and affecting the voting each round.

You aren't specifically talking to me, but i do have something i want to add to this comment. If you vote for dragon, you're still contributing and affecting the voting each round. The flaw with your logic is that "eventually" every monster will be added, but the fact remains that it's the same as the system in place, "eventually" if you vote for it, or donate enough money, it will be added. It's entirely possible and likely that a person who donates more in this group, may not get what they donated for, and would have to wait another month for it. The only people this is entirely beneficial for, are people who want any new addition as a monster, don't care which, don't care about what specific monster and are entirely fine that the option they donated for which is possibly 50$+ as an example, has the same chance as if i donated 1$ or even none in the same category. This isn't fair in the slightest, which is what you propose in your solution.

If people specifically viewed your "problem" as you do, then there would be an issue. The fact remains that your "logic" and "argument" has no facts, no objectivity.

There is no argument actually. It's just "This is my opinion, and this is why i think it should change based on my opinion.". It's all subjectivity, there is nothing here but your opinions. The point being is that your solution and argument is fundamentally flawed.

You don't take into account how donors may have a very big issue with what you're proposing. I'm personally one of them. If you're a non-donor looking to donate your 20 bucks and want your needs being catered to by grouping everything you want together, which may very well screw the other donors which you aren't taking into account, then maybe you should re-evaluate your proposal. If your solution is "there will be an addition to monsters, just not the one you may want, no matter how much of your money you donated", compared to "There will be an addition, but it depends on how much an individual option accumulated, which relies on how much you or everyone else donated for that option." then i would take the latter. As again, it boils down to personal preference. Trading the current system for another system that is based on group preference instead of individual (Or group) preference (Depending on the option and who's donating), and a person's dollar means nothing but only his 1 vote does overall when that "category" wins, would only bring more problems than a solution. As again it's a very real problem that the person donating the most and wanting an option of his own out of these features may not be donating for the most popular option, in which case he is then screwed out of his money and according to you "should wait another month". Just that statement you mad earlier, where they should wait another month makes no sense, as you can do that now with the current system, you can wait and eventually everything will be added, and it doesn't screw an individual voter. This current system only upsets someone who views everything they find "similar", (As somehow all monster breeds and types are "similar" to you, even gender, be it male or female) who wants an addition to something they want, regardless of how much money they donated, when money is the key aspect that should be the driving force in what get's in.

What I really want is for a new species to be added in. I don't care too much which one, but Bunnygirls is probably my top choice.

This is your entire argument summed up. You want something, and it isn't beneficial to anyone else unless they view it very specifically, as you do. It doesn't matter to you that other donors may be screwed as you didn't take them into account. It only matters the accumulative amount of money spanned by a category of something you want being the very driving force behind your "argument". Which can be summed up to your preferences, as you've stated multiple times, not just on this occasion.

Your also not taking into account, that the minute that this becomes unfair or a system that a majority of current donors do not like, then it stops/lessens support on the game. Currently the reason this game is still going, is due to the donations he's currently getting.

Your solution would only bring many....many more problems. The implementation of your "solution", would be horrific and it could very well stop current donators from continuing to donate.

[Privateer]

I see the species debate continues..

I like the mechanic of Delilah increasing the payment every month. I do not like the mechanic of it increased 600% when I just have extra cash laying around, it kinda takes the fun out of the game.

Currency, in the amount of $0.02, has been deducted from my account

[Lucky777]

Those sentences are complete contradictions.

I must assure you that there is nothing contradictory in my entire post.

The items on the poll have the money attributed to them individually, as it currently stands.
The item with the most money attributed to it wins, as it currently stands.
That is the state of affairs which I am saying should continue, as it has its simplicity and its complete clarity to commend it.

It is a state of affairs which gives a voting advantage to those items which contain a "category" in themselves as opposed to those items which represent individual parts of a category. I see no reason to deny that, for it is so.
And I see no reason for Hartista to change the system despite that fact, for he is entitled to do exactly as he has done, although that causes some items to have an advantage.

[LoneWolf]

This is exactly my point, you're argument is based around your opinion and your preferences. Your "flaws" and opinion is completely subjective. It would take someone with the same mindset to actually see it this way. Unfortunately arguing about how you view and approach the donating system is incredibly redundant.

The problems with FPTP voting are pretty widely recognised. Several of them can even be proven mathematically, which is about as close to 'objective truth' as it's possible to get. Unless your voters want exactly one thing and have absolutely no opinion on any of the others (unlikely even in the best of circumstances), there's a definite possibility that it will give the 'wrong' result.

Please note: saying that the problems IC is pointing to really do exist isn't the same as saying that I agree with his solution. (I've made a couple of proposals of my own a few posts up, in fact)

Grouping the different options into categories turns it into a slightly more sophisticated form of FPTP voting, but it would essentially still be a form of FPTP. That means that the same criticisms still apply, at least to some extent. What it does do is change how often the problem will come up, and precisely which choices get an advantage or a disadvantage.

In this case, adding categories moves the advantage from unique fetishes to things that can be put into a broad category. Neoteny would be disadvantaged; the various species of monster would gain an advantage. I think that there's a good argument that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages, but that's heavily dependant on how transferrable people's opinions are. If there are a lot of voters who want something like 'another female monster', but don't care too much which one, then this would be 'fairer'. If, on the other hand, most people have one specific thing that they want, then the current system is better.

If your solution is "there will be an addition to monsters, just not the one you may want, no matter how much of your money you donated", compared to "There will be an addition, but it depends on how much an individual option accumulated, which relies on how much you or everyone else donated for that option." then i would take the latter. As again, it boils down to personal preference. Trading the current system for another system that is based on group preference instead of individual (Or group) preference (Depending on the option and who's donating), and a person's dollar means nothing but only his 1 vote does overall when that "category" wins, would only bring more problems than a solution. As again it's a very real problem that the person donating the most and wanting an option of his own out of these features may not be donating for the most popular option, in which case he is then screwed out of his money and according to you "should wait another month". Just that last bit where they should wait another month makes no sense, as you can do that now with the current system, you can wait and eventually everything will be added, and it doesn't screw an individual voter. This current system only upsets someone who views everything they find "similar" (As somehow all monster breeds and types are "similar" to you, be it male or female) who wants an addition to something they want, which is something you've already stated. You being unsatisfied with the current system due to your preferences, and you're also not a donator.

I think you may have misread his proposal somewhat.

There is no situation in which being put into a category decreases the chances of an option winning, since he specified that the most popular option in the winning category would be chosen. If the option is the most popular one in it's category, then all votes for other options in the same category are effectively votes for it (at least for the current round of voting). If it's not the most popular one, then it wasn't going to win anyway - the one that is the most popular was always going to beat it.

Having other options grouped into competing categories, on the other hand, certainly can decrease the chances of winning, but that's quite a different thing. You can definitely still guarantee a win for whatever it is you want ... but you may have to spend more this way. (And, as noted, as long as whatever it is you want is also in a category, it probably all (approximately) cancels out.)

[IrrelevantComment]

So I'd like to suggest having the voting options condensed into new species categories, and then just add in whatever monster has had the most progress done in that category. Masculine Male Monster (Dickwolves, buttstallions, etc.), Feminine Male Monster (Catboys, male elves, etc.), Monstrous Female Monster (Alarunes, googirls, etc.) and Humanoid Female Monster (Catgirls, harpies, etc.) would cover all of the bases nicely, I think.

Personally I would be happy with a system like this

Of course we haven't seen the demons yet, so here's hoping they look something like this

Your images don't work for me, but I've seen the demons as they currently are, and they are of the large muscular humanaoid variety, if that helps.

Deathreaper, I'm not going to bother continuing this argument. You continue to debate a strawman and assert that my views on the voting system are entirely based around what I want to win without addressing my criticisms of the current system. You seem to think that the current system has no flaws, and 5 minutes on Wikipedia looking at the flaws of FPTP would answer your points better than I can. You say there are no problems objectively, but this isn't true.

I admit that the category idea I suggested was by no means a perfect system and that there were problems with it. It wasn't proposed as perfect solution, it was just an off the top of my head idea, and the main point of the post was to highlight the flaws currently. I suggest you look at Lonewolf's post, as his suggestions were better than mine.

Edit: When I wrote this I hadn't seen Lonewolf's most recent post, but that basically covers everything I've said.

[SapphicKatherine]

I see the species debate continues..

I like the mechanic of Delilah increasing the payment every month. I do not like the mechanic of it increased 600% when I just have extra cash laying around, it kinda takes the fun out of the game.

Currency, in the amount of $0.02, has been deducted from my account

I am in total agreement there. I like Delilah pushing you to make more, but I think the plot stuff is very much in placeholder mode at the moment, like with the missing art for the Delilah's gimp and really no role to speak of for him. The scale gets funky as you get into the millions as well. One month I owed 5mil, the next month the payment was 'increased' to 3 mil because that's all I had left on the debt.

The beginning narrative has a weird dialogue like that as well. Delilah says you owe 10 mil, then says she took 1 mil out of your parents' account. Shouldn't you owe 9 mil at that point?

[deathreaper711]

The problems with FPTP voting are pretty widely recognised. Several of them can even be proven mathematically, which is about as close to 'objective truth' as it's possible to get. Unless your voters want exactly one thing and have absolutely no opinion on any of the others (unlikely even in the best of circumstances), there's a definite possibility that it will give the 'wrong' result.

Please note: saying that the problems IC is pointing to really do exist isn't the same as saying that I agree with his solution. (I've made a couple of proposals of my own a few posts up, in fact)

Grouping the different options into categories turns it into a slightly more sophisticated form of FPTP voting, but it would essentially still be a form of FPTP. That means that the same criticisms still apply, at least to some extent. What it does do is change how often the problem will come up, and precisely which choices get an advantage or a disadvantage.

In this case, adding categories moves the advantage from unique fetishes to things that can be put into a broad category. Neoteny would be disadvantaged; the various species of monster would gain an advantage. I think that there's a good argument that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages, but that's heavily dependant on how transferrable people's opinions are. If there are a lot of voters who want something like 'another female monster', but don't care too much which one, then this would be 'fairer'. If, on the other hand, most people have one specific thing that they want, then the current system is better.

I wasn't aware that i said FPTP was exempt of not having issues, I'm aware it isn't the perfect solution nor the best. I don't believe i explicitly stated that i wasn't aware of the issues, only that there were many flaws in his logic. I simply said that IC's "solution" was much worse than the current system, and that it had many more issues than the current system. That and his phrasing, and arguments were mostly based off of his own preferences as he himself stated. He didn't take into account a lot of things.

Your solution would be more fair to those that you stated in the former, but currently I'm a donor and I'm part of the latter (Unless i misinterpreted your definition of popularity within said group). The minute the donation turns into a "popularity" voting system rather than those willing to be generous and donate a hefty sum for something specific, i stop donating. As "popularity" by definition is not the amount donated, as one person can donate more than everyone else, but that does not equate with "popularity". Not that I'm trying to threaten that or believing I'm entitled to think I as a donor hold the same opinions as the opinions of all donors, but personally i feel like it's incredibly unfair. That being said i do want to voice my displeasure in that proposal, as it would stop me from donating. Not that I don't enjoy supporting this game, but the fact remains that if i donate for something, especially a large amount, i would rather have the option specifically for what i want and what i want to donate for. As long as it's grouped up and isn't dictated on a "popular" vote or what a group who donated less want more, for example if it's simply having the option with the most amount of money donated to in that group being the winner, then sure, i agree fully.

There is no situation in which being put into a category decreases the chances of an option winning, since he specified that the most popular option in the winning category would be chosen. If the option is the most popular one in it's category, then all votes for other options in the same category are effectively votes for it (at least for the current round of voting). If it's not the most popular one, then it wasn't going to win anyway - the one that is the most popular was always going to beat it.

Having other options grouped into competing categories, on the other hand, certainly can decrease the chances of winning, but that's quite a different thing. You can definitely still guarantee a win for whatever it is you want ... but you may have to spend more this way. (And, as noted, as long as whatever it is you want is also in a category, it probably all (approximately) cancels out.)

There are plenty of situations that could be like that, depending on the change in the system, nor did i know what he was specifically stating as he never bothered to elaborate further. He also said the most "wanted", though he did not specify how that would be evaluated, which i made an assumption based off of his vague "solution", instead of clarifying it more openly, it just turned into a debate about semantics and him repeatedly saying I'm using a "Strawman" instead of trying to actually explain more comprehensively despite me pointing out issues. That aside, if the system was like this, then i see no problem with it, as "popularity" i assume is dictated by the amount donated. But "popularity" would be the wrong word as one person could easily beat everyone else's donations if they had enough cash, which by definition does not equate with popularity, but rather the amount one is willing to donate. Amassing it into groups is definitely fine with me, as long as it ISN'T dictated by popularity and is dictated by the amount donated.

So more or less i agree.

Deathreaper, I'm not going to bother continuing this argument. You continue to debate a strawman and assert that my views on the voting system are entirely based around what I want to win without addressing my criticisms of the current system. You seem to think that the current system has no flaws, and 5 minutes on Wikipedia looking at the flaws of FPTP would answer your points better than I can. You say there are no problems objectively, but this isn't true.

Tell me where i explicitly stated this. I have voiced my opinion and pointed out the flaws in what you proposed. I have also pointed out the fact that how you phrased and addressed everything was only pointing to one thing. I never proffered a solution, nor did i realize i had to if i was to criticize, nor was i aware i had to state things in a specific manner when i was only pointing out the cons in what you stated, and the pros in how i personally view it. I also said that you pointed out no problems objectively, not there were no problems objectively. There's a difference, and your solution you proposed only compounded the issues from how i read it, something you never elaborated further on but simply argued semantics and subjectivity. I am glad though that you're not continuing this argument, as it was becoming incredibly redundant.

[coyoteredmoon]

Request: understands that arguments take place in forums like this often, and that this is a rather heated debate concerning the voting process directly correlating to this game; but is there a possibility that this argument can be moved elsewhere or cooled down? This is a development thread, after all, and it will become tiresome if a viewer has to back-peddle a few pages to find notes concerning development or development ideas.

Thanks
-Redmoon

[fred2btz]

hello, I'm French and y like this game =)

[IrrelevantComment]

I wasn't aware that i said FPTP was exempt of not having issues, I'm aware it isn't the perfect solution nor the best. I don't believe i explicitly stated that i wasn't aware of the issues, only that there were many flaws in his logic.
...
Tell me where i explicitly stated this.

This is exactly my point, you're argument is based around your opinion and your preferences. Your "flaws" and opinion is completely subjective. It would take someone with the same mindset to actually see it this way. Unfortunately arguing about how you view and approach the donating system is incredibly redundant.
...
Your "argument" and "logic" pertains to how you as an individual view the voting, there are no problems objectively that you've stated, but subjectively. The rest was due to what you specifically stated, if you want me to quote everything you said, i very well can, but i assume you know what you yourself said.
...
If people specifically viewed your "problem" as you do, then there would be an issue. The fact remains that your "logic" and "argument" has no facts, no objectivity.
...
There is no argument actually. It's just "This is my opinion, and this is why i think it should change based on my opinion.". It's all subjectivity, there is nothing here but your opinions. The point being is that your solution and argument is fundamentally flawed.

Right there.

And before you come back with more of the BS about how my arguments are subjective and only suit what I want, take another look at my original arguments:

The thing is that FPTP is a terrible voting system in that it has three major flaws: 1) It encourages tactical voting; 2) There are wasted votes and 3) Similar ideas have separate votes, meaning that votes are split between them.

These are widely accepted flaws of FPTP, and these form the basis of my problem with the current system.

Since I've already said that my solution isn't the best one, if you want to continue to debate this, those three things are what you need to disprove. None of them are subjective, or exist only because I'm not happy about a result.

[LoneWolf]

I wasn't aware that i said FPTP was exempt of not having issues, I'm aware it isn't the perfect solution nor the best.

Going back over your posts after you said this, I can see that the way I was originally reading it might not have been quite what you'd intended. If that's the case, you might want to be more careful spelling out what you mean with lines like this:

Your "flaws" and opinion is completely subjective.

The first time I read that, it sounded to me like you were claiming that there weren't any flaws with FPTP.
Edit: IC's gone into more detail on this above.

As "popularity" by definition is not the amount donated, as one person can donate more than everyone else, but that does not equate with "popularity".

... I did say 'popular', didn't I? Mea culpa.

Just to clear things up: anywhere I've used 'popular' or a similar word I mean 'has had the most money donated', since that's the only thing that the donations page actually tracks. (Although where I suggested having Hartista choose from the top five, I'd be perfectly happy with him using any criteria he wants. Most money, most people interested, highest vowel-to-consonant ratio in the name... that's up to him. That's the point of letting him choose.) Obviously I can't speak for anyone else with any certainty, but I suspect that most other people are using it in a similar sense.

There's been some ambiguous phrasing by everyone involved, but I think we're all more-or-less on the same page now.

[IrrelevantComment]

Again, I pretty much agree with everything Lonewolf just said. Whilst you didn't explicitly state there were no objective flaws, when I presented objective flaws you claimed all I was using was subjective arguments.

And I also used 'popular' to refer to how much was donated, which I can see was a bad choice of wording and I'm sorry if that's the root of the confusion.

[deathreaper711]

Right there.

And before you come back with more of the BS about how my arguments are subjective and only suit what I want, take another look at my original arguments:

The thing is that FPTP is a terrible voting system in that it has three major flaws: 1) It encourages tactical voting; 2) There are wasted votes and 3) Similar ideas have separate votes, meaning that votes are split between them.

These are widely accepted flaws of FPTP, and these form the basis of my problem with the current system.

Since I've already said that my solution isn't the best one, if you want to continue to debate this, those three things are what you need to disprove. None of them are subjective, or exist only because I'm not happy about a result.

So much for not continuing the debate, I'll completely disregard the fact that those quotes are taken out of context and in are direct response to your comments and opinions. Some of those sentences though are vague and phrased improperly, for that i apologize. Though if you want me to solely give my opinion and point out the HUGE flaws in your logic and using other peoples arguments for something that doesn't even come close to qualifying as "issues" for a vastly different system that only shares a few fundamentals with this one then alright-

1) It CAN encourage "Tactical Voting", in this case, a vote is a dollar. Due to all of the factors and the evidence present you cannot say that it most definitely is an underlying issue, especially one that could "encourage" someone to those lengths. That being said, a person can choose not to succumb to "Tactical Voting" despite it being possibly encouraged if one has more money to donate, or even less money due to the rollover feature. Another problem with this being regarded as an issue, is that donation-voting is held PER month, logically you would eventually get what you donated for if everything is to be included and you donated money for it, where as most FPTP aren't nearly consistent, and usually the votes are "reset", nor are given two of the top outcomes. An argument i can make to point this out, was the Neoteny argument i already made and you passed up, Male/male animations were similar. If this was really a pressing issue, these two wouldn't have won, but it was due to either a small group of people, or one person donating a large amount, they were both really low, instead of succumbing to "Tactical Voting", they're both now the winners of the second month. The fact remains that while it "encourages", it doesn't eliminate any voting that isn't "tactical" voting, this month's winners is evidence of this fact. That being said, those that don't use "Tactical Voting" also help support the game further as it's more money altogether being donated to match or succeed the current top donations, so there are plenty of other factors that could be thought of to help entice people to NOT use "tactical" voting, especially considering the rollover donations being one of the biggest factors here. But it doesn't seem to be that much of an issue, on top of this, it's completely how you view and perceive it, this clearly can't be treated as a regular voting system, nor can it be criticized as a normal voting system, especially in this manner.

2) Wasted votes don't apply to the losing features, as they roll over for the next time, they aren't "wasted", they're prolonged/rollover votes. In the case of "wasted votes" or "excess votes" being for a winner? That nets Hartista more money and i assume gives him more determination to apply more quality. So no, this does not apply at all to this, nor is an issue.

3) I've already addressed this multiple times. It's how you define "similar", for starters. People have different tastes and don't want certain monsters and don't like them. Just because the option inclusion is similar, doesn't mean the option itself is similar, this is flawed in both the way you phrase it, and it making no sense. For example: It could be said that a male and female are similar in that they're human's, but it doesn't mean that they themselves are similar due to one or two similarities, this applies with everything and applies to monsters from Catboys to Bunnygirls, they are not similar, but they have a similarity, they're both monsters, and most people want one or the other to be included. Not saying there are people who wouldn't want both, but usually it makes sense to split something up like this due to the differences. It's split to different single options for people who want to choose what specific monster they want. This is purely subjective on being an issue, due to it being based on nothing factual. Hell, even your definition of "similar" isn't correct, and it being an "issue" is merely an opinion, one that is based off of nothing but preference and how you view it. Arguably it may be better benefited with in a group, but my argument from the start was "not with your solution", and again this is not really a pressing "issue" (if you could call it that), especially not one that merits drastic change.

All of these "Objective" arguments that you pretty much lifted from wikipedia or any other place online that criticized FPTP are based around a normal voting system, which in that case, the criticism is well merited. This isn't a normal voting system, not even close despite sharing some fundamentals, thus your arguments that you pretty much just copied (Except i think the last one?), may have some very good points and well thought out criticisms in their respective subject regarding a more normal system in regards to FPTP, but most do not or very lightly apply to this system currently in place. It of course like every system can and does have flaws, but those you have stated aren't issues, or at least issues that merit the amount of attention you imply it should get.

Just to clear things up: anywhere I've used 'popular' or a similar word I mean 'has had the most money donated', since that's the only thing that the donations page actually tracks. (Although where I suggested having Hartista choose from the top five, I'd be perfectly happy with him using any criteria he wants. Most money, most people interested, highest vowel-to-consonant ratio in the name... that's up to him. That's the point of letting him choose.) Obviously I can't speak for anyone else with any certainty, but I suspect that most other people are using it in a similar sense.

There's been some ambiguous phrasing by everyone involved, but I think we're all more-or-less on the same page now.

More or less, but i do pretty much agree with you. Though i personally would prefer if it was the most money involved as i believe the people who give more, should actually be given precedence. The problem with letting Hartista choose, is while i have no problem with it and I'm sure many others don't, considering it's his game and everything. Though if he chooses something within the top 5 that isn't the top donated or something that a lot of people want, he may be the target of some frustration due to his choice. Which is a very real possibility that he may come under fire or get angry donors for choosing something that they didn't donate for at the time. At least the current frustration is placed on the system or on the other donors, or lack of money, and personally i think it might be best to leave it like that.

Again, I pretty much agree with everything Lonewolf just said. Whilst you didn't explicitly state there were no objective flaws, when I presented objective flaws you claimed all I was using was subjective arguments.

And I also used 'popular' to refer to how much was donated, which I can see was a bad choice of wording and I'm sorry if that's the root of the confusion.

That's some of it clarified due to your wording. But the rest is what i already replied to, most criticisms with FPTP voting has to do with elections or various other forms of voting which includes a mass amount of people all usually getting one or so votes, and are not related to currency or mass multiple votes per person which is what is in this current donation system. It uses the same fundamental basis, but a lot of the issues you've already stated are debatable at best. Especially considering this isn't a normal FPTP system, as votes are money and it's less of a voting system and more of a donation bidding war that uses the same FPTP principle, and one individual can take something from 0 to 200 if they wanted to, which you don't seem to take into account. That and the same argument applied to other forms of FPTP voting may not be specifically applied to this due to the nature of the current system in place, despite again sharing some basic fundamentals, at it's core it's still a donation system (One that uses money instead of votes) and again is vastly different than those criticisms that target the widely known uses of FPTP.

[LuigiDEK]

Looking at the debate that grew in the span of one to two days, the easiest solution (maybe not the best) would be to have two separate polls:

1. Being new features/traits
2. Being new monsters

But I have only skimmed the posts and am only offering a way to quiet everyone.
Sorry if anyone already posted this idea as I said I only skimmed the posts.

[Ver Greeneyes]

If there's any weighting or categorization to be done in the bid war, it should be based on what the developer feels the implementation cost will be. You can't weigh them based on 'common sense', because people have wildly different preferences when it comes to fetishes. Someone can be really into bunnygirls and nothing else, and another person might just want more species to choose from.

Perhaps a way to make the voting more fair would be to allow someone to weigh how much of their money goes toward each feature. You could even give features negative weight (normalized to the donation amount of course) to push them down the list (though that would mean switching away from showing the amount and toward showing a 'score' for each feature). Of course this system would get pretty cumbersome if a lot of different incentives were added, and you can already do the same thing by making several smaller donations. I don't think it really matters in the end, considering it's not like any money is wasted. It still goes toward the project, and the feature you want will be added when those ahead of it are done.

[coyoteredmoon]

HartistaPipebomb: having difficulties with Private messaging system. Will not send messages out for some reason. Resume communication via email again I guess? Will send trials via that method for now.