Hello everyone,
As a candidate for the presidency of the Federation of Liechtenstein, I'm taking the liberty of posting here the link to go and vote for this federation. I hope you can give me your vote so that I can help this small nation grow.
#elections?election=293
Thank you in advance for your confidence.
LeBrasseur

Gentlemen and ladies, I'm LeBrasseur's main competitor, and I'm sure he's promised you beer in exchange for a vote, but you can rest assured that I'll be Saké for everyone 😂

😂😂

So I'm voting for Apedo ^^

Just a quick up to say I'm counting on your votes

Hello everyone,
Thank you to everyone who voted for me. The verdict is in, I didn't get the federation, which is a bit disappointing but that's the game.
However, is there any way of seeing the votes afterwards, because apart from seeing that it was my opponent who got it, I can't see any way of knowing whether it was by a large margin or not..... which makes things even more obscure and unclear.........
If that's not the case, I think it should be something to improve even if I'm well aware that it's certainly not a priority for the game.
Thank you all in any case, but I'll save my round for another time.
Sincerely
LeBrasseur

Surely it should be possible to do this?
There is the number of thumbs for the subtitles and interviews, doing the same for the number of votes would be a good thing even if it is not necessarily necessary (just like the thumbs on the interviews)

The results of the votes for the Federations have never been published, even we admins don't have access to the results, sorry.

It should be added in the manual that being part of one of the 4-5 big cartels will open up the game 100%... and that otherwise you'll only have access to one game... whether you pay or not.
The game is padlocked by a few agreements, which is clearly a shame from the point of view of the game's success.
For this kind of thing, limiting the number of votes in the same agreement to 5, for example, would restore a bit of fairness, even if I doubt it's feasible.

You have to admit that there's some truth in what you say @Lebaygue

We should also consider limiting multi-account votes, but it's complicated 🫣.

I agree with you Magpie, being part of an agreement, a good one if possible, opens the doors to understanding the game, to help that you won't find elsewhere and a fortiori if you persist, to a prize list, so far, no worries.
After that, it's the underlying power in the other arcana of the game that raises questions.
Of course, who cares about Liechtenstein? But at the end of the day, it's a member of a renowned cartel that has it all the same.
That the big nations are for the managers of the big cartels, well, at a pinch, why not, but even the crumbs you take for yourself... and that's a cause for concern from my point of view.
I don't want to take away the success of an agreement, which it deserves, it's just limiting its impact on the "bonuses" of the game apart from the Cup and the D1 agreement ranking.
The fact that a member of a big agreement says on the discord or the forum that you have to vote for him in such and such a thing and it will be recorded, that's intrinsically rubbish... there's no longer any notion of merit... whereas when you, for example, the CP, win a title whether it's the Cup or the standings or both, there's merit no matter what.
That's all there is to it.

Otherwise I may have won the election because of my candidacy and not because of my deal? 😅
It's a shame to always see the negative in this game, this was the third federation I've applied to and it's the first time I've won the elections, yet I've always been in the same agreement ...