New callvotes?

[Zidane]

This idea came into my head one day when no one could agree on what map that they wanted to play. Most just didn't want to play the next map (Folly). So, being the crazy person i am, i tried: "callvote nextmap NOT TH-Folly.unr". Of course, it didn't work, because there is no such command. However, I think that there should be. It would be perfect for the times when no one can agree what map to play, but they don't want the next one the server would play. On a stranger note, there could be other callvotes that allowed players to ask questions like "Do you think (last thief left) can win this?" or "Do the guards have any brains this game?". It would be a bit of extra work for the programmers, but I think it could make things more interesting.


(Take that you guard)

Ok, I think that I've said what I meant to say. :swordthi:
The smilies rock

[Nachimir]

I can see the not one being useful perhaps, but I think the random questions one would be far more annoying than the polls here... :p

[Omega]

^ What he said.

[LaughingRat]

^ What he said.

A server is a computer. You can't just tell it what NOT to do, you have to tell it what TO do. If by NOT'ing the next map, you mean skip to the one that comes after it though, OK.

[Omega]

A server is a computer. You can't just tell it what NOT to do, you have to tell it what TO do. If by NOT'ing the next map, you mean skip to the one that comes after it though, OK.

Wot?

I meant the skip vote.

[LaughingRat]

A server is a computer. You can't just tell it what NOT to do, you have to tell it what TO do. If by NOT'ing the next map, you mean skip to the one that comes after it though, OK.

Wot?

I meant the skip vote.

And I didn't mean to quote you! OOPS!!

[Stakhanov]

Something less rude than kicks/kickbans would be a tag vote...
like callvote lama x or callvote noob y (wouldn't be displayed to the targeted player , tag only showed to others so that they can know of noobs/DMers presence earlier)
And , btw , a callvote leet z when someone really owned a game.

[BobTheMad]

^ What he said.

A server is a computer. You can't just tell it what NOT to do, you have to tell it what TO do. If by NOT'ing the next map, you mean skip to the one that comes after it though, OK.

OK LR... speaking as a programmer, yes you CAN tell a computer NOT to do something. It's really quite easy.

[The_Dan]

How about:

callvote nextmap (with no parameters)

cycles the next map, to the one after it on the list.

Thats simple enough

[Yenzarill]

When he talks about a NOT option for a vote, it is rather obvious that he means to either skip the next map or select another map randomly (excluding the current next map).

It should also be apparently obvious that he wasn't speaking on a level which would involve actual coding... therefore saying that "telling a computer to NOT do something is impossible" is misunderstanding what he said.

[LaughingRat]

OK LR... speaking as a programmer, yes you CAN tell a computer NOT to do something. It's really quite easy.

OK, I wasn't specific enough....

In this case, if you tell the server NOT to run the next map, you'll also have to tell it WHAT to run, so just a vote to NOT play a map isn't sufficient. Something like what The_Dan proposed, which is essentially a "callvote skipnext", would work.

[-=V12US=-]

OK LR... speaking as a programmer, yes you CAN tell a computer NOT to do something. It's really quite easy.

OK, I wasn't specific enough....

In this case, if you tell the server NOT to run the next map, you'll also have to tell it WHAT to run, so just a vote to NOT play a map isn't sufficient. Something like what The_Dan proposed, which is essentially a "callvote skipnext", would work.

Just skip would suffice IMHO.

[LaughingRat]

Just skip would suffice IMHO.

Sure, that would work. The syntax isn't that important, as long as it's vaguely sensible and the coding tells the server what to do.