modified

Over in the hack-offs 4S thread, discussion has appropriately begun about voting within 4S (all hack-offs usually begin from a tie or failure in the voting system.) But the topic of voting is too large to keep under the other thread so I am starting a new one here.

Voting in 4S is core to the fundamental philosophies it was built on:

People have different opinions, we should respect them all.
In 4-square, every player is a judge. This idea is roughly taken from the sport of ultimate (flying disc or frisbee (TM)). (Please read item 2 under the introduction, "Spirit of the game"). As a judge it is your job to truthfully represent your opinion during a game of 4S. It is also your job to respect the opinion of others. There are definitely times when differences of opinion cause an 'innocent' to be penalized, but remember its not capital punishment, its just a trip to the end of the line.

The politics of social interaction silently rule 4S.
Political skill should never be under-estimated. Your ability to convince people to agree with you is sometimes going to get you further in the game than using fancy footwork. Every little action will influence your popularity in some way. In the end the player with the best combination of public image and foot skill will be victorious. **Please note that this is one of the biggest points of contention for players who dislike 4S ("You shouldn't be able to win using strongarm tactics"). So for all of you out there in this camp, please let it be known that I4C, The International 4-Square Committee, is now in its formative stages and one of its primary functions will be the creation and standardization of an offshoot branch of 4S dubbed "Prosquare" and this will be a refereed sport with NO VOTING.

What goes around comes around.
If you argue alot and make voting calls that are seemingly irresponsible, people will try harder to get you out. (Steve Goldberg understands this principle more than anyone, but he has the skills to back it up) Also, sympathy can be a powerful ally in 4S. If you get out because of being picked on during a vote by a corrupt server and 1 or 2 of his/her cohorts, other people will help you out with your cause eventually.

It takes clean, well placed passes to win.
Half-ass attempts to win by using shanks, near-spikes, and ridicolous low shots should looked down upon by everyone, including yourself if you try to pull one. This is *especially* true when you are serving game point. To go for the win, the final ultimate point, your kill must be undenyably perfect. Any gray area shots should be considered an attempt to walk away victorious from an election where the polls were electronically rigged in your favor from the beggining. In my opinion, if you create disagreement when serving for game, you should just step out and try harder next time.

Ok now that ive attempted to exert my political power, lets hear what people think about voting in 4S...

I intend to reread this and post when I get back home and sleep after this long week.

joecrain wrote: What goes around comes around.
If you argue alot and make voting calls that are seemingly irresponsible, people will try harder to get you out.

Yes, I see this a lot. There is a player that ALWAYS tries to defend calls on contact/interfereance against him by claiming it was right over the line. Am I supposed to believe that both players remained in ther respective squares and made contact right above the line? I'm sure it's possible but very rare. But there's no fucking way that it happens E-V-E-R-Y time it's called on him. Most other players have caught on to this and vote him out more often than not. It does not help his credibility when he's known to cut in line, and rack up huge amounts of points by targeting the newbs and avoiding serving/passing to better players until he has to.

I usually try to win the "popular vote". I try to vote fair, I'll give props for good rounds, epic hack-offs and particularly awesome kills. I'd like to think other people will judge me fair because of it when the time comes. I also like to knock out people that like to talk shit or "cheap" players when they get to the first square (it's kinda funny to see their trustrations ). I find other kickers are more willing to help out with screens and fakes.

joecrain wrote: Any gray area shots should be considered an attempt to walk away victorious from an election where the polls were electronically rigged in your favor from the beggining. In my opinion, if you create disagreement when serving for game, you should just step out and try harder next time.

At Lane, any gray area created at game point is often met with a unanimous vote against King with little to no chance of the other player in dispute accepting a hack-off. It's common to see the King just suck it up and reluctantly take the walk to the back of the line before the vote because they know they have no hope of winning it.

Voting was introduced as a way to judge line calls and Bologni(BelowKnee).

It's fun to point at the player who should be out.

Arguing is less fun.

And, sense you can't change your vote, there is little sense in arguing.

It's nice to hear each players opionion as to what they saw.

Voting should keep players from being able to cheat.

Voting should not create opportunity to cheat or lie.

Vote honestly and laugh at someone who lies against you. But scorn someone who lies against you twice.

I love the efficeincy of 'point only' voters. They simply point to who they think is out. No bad acting. No drama queen antics. No CSI like recreations of the alleged foul. No long winded dissertation. No sales pitch.
Point.

I won't deny that it can be funny sometimes. But it can also ruin the flow and vibe of a match with talented players wasting their breath talking instread of playing.