Please fix.

I'm missing it; what's wrong with that screenshot?

Could you please explain the problem. All we are seeing is a screen shot about a UP vote about increasing number of trade routes. Is that the problem you have? Do you want it eliminated, or something?

Is it because there is a 12 route limit, no matter what is voted in?

Being a Neutral civ, I understand that this vote would not give me any extra routes once I have the max that the techs allow.
But, the way I vote could effect others to some degree.

Maybe it's the fact that it says a specific number of bonus routes in the description, and yet it gives an option for how many routes to add?

Maybe he thinks he shouldn't dominate the game so much?

Actually, no matter how many trade routes you have, I've never seen it actually increase the number of routes.

It is not a yes/no type of vote.
It is asking how many extra routes you would suggest, so of course it gives a few options to choose from.

I think we need more information on what's the issue. If I had to guess it's the sentence "Please select an option to vote on" that ends in a preposition and should be "Please select an option on which to vote".

"You ended that sentence with a preposition. Bastard!"
/O'Neill

Oooh! Ooh! I wanna play the "guess what his issue is" game. Is it because the Thalan and Terrans are the only ones pictured, but the Iconians still have a crap load of votes?

\I got nothing. What's the deal?

Is it because the Thalan and Terrans are the only ones pictured, but the Iconians still have a crap load of votes?

I'm guessing that is the complaint, although Fuels Chief should have made that clear.

I wish UP questions like this would be broken up into two questions. "Should the number of trade routes be increased? [A)YES B)NO]". Then if the majority says YES, follow up with "By how many? [A)ONE B)TWO C)THREE D)FOUR]".

Even this is problematic because you could have 30% choose 1 route, 20% 2 routes, 20% 3 routes, and 10% 4 routes. 1 route gets the most votes but 70% want 2 or more routes.

I'm guessing that is the complaint, although Fuels Chief should have made that clear.

Did not mean to be unclear. In fact I was playing the Iconians.

Maybe it's the fact that it says a specific number of bonus routes in the description, and yet it gives an option for how many routes to add?

Exactly.

The initial statement sets up the question to be a yes no vote. It asks to expand the number of trade route by 2. Not by how many trade routes should trade be expanded.

Is it because the Thalan and Terrans are the only ones pictured, but the Iconians still have a crap load of votes?

No, can't be that, Fuels Chief IS the Iconian Refuge.

I wish UP questions like this would be broken up into two questions. "Should the number of trade routes be increased? [A)YES B)NO]". Then if the majority says YES, follow up with "By how many? [A)ONE B)TWO C)THREE D)FOUR]".

That is definitely a problem with these multiple choice votes, though in this case with the Iconians greater than 50% it doesn't really apply.

I have had votes where none was chosen even though the majority had voted for some restriction. It was just that everyone voted for a different level of restriction so the none response was the single most popular response.

And though it is fun to guess the issue, I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

I see no problem with the wording.

Perhaps the initial motion from the UP administrators was for an additional 2 trade routes (note particularly the terminology "considering"), but when the motion went to the floor, there were amendments to make this either 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 added routes. After appropriate discussion and voting, the body came to the majority decision on a particular number of trade routes.

... it's still really dumb that it leads towards a yes or no on 2 additional trade routes, but then suddenly, without warning, gives you an option of just how many trade routes, instead of explaining that instead of specifically 2, the number of additional trade routes is to be decided by vote.

However, saying 2 additional in the first place is superfluous and a waste of time to read, then. I'd rather have it say that they're proposing to allow additional trade routes, then leave it to the voting to decide, not specify any specific number at all in the description. None of the other proposals do anything this contradictory.

They start out by explaining why there were limited routes to begin with, then go on to say that they are considering additional routes to further prosperity, suggesting the number be set at 2 additional routes.

Suggesting only.

The number they are suggesting is not what is being voted on. And the wording does not imply that, because the followup question is how many additional routes do you suggest be added.

If you want to keep trading the way it is, you can choose 0 additional routes.
You can select up to 4 as the number of additional routes if you would like to see a lot more trading.

I really do not see a problem with the wording, or the choices to choose from.

Yeah I don't like the Terran Leaders Hair Cut Either. I agree its Minor though.