Joined: 3/6/2006
Posts: 15
Location: Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
moozooh wrote:
No, what I'm saying is, the author will always want to vote for their own run, due to the obvious bias involved. Which is why it's strictly prohibited in every possible voting system where the result is important for whatever reason. Not to say that it's just classless.
At least in Brazil, when there is an election the candidates do vote. And I wouldn't say that the result of presidential elections isn't important...
Just out of curiosity, how many of them vote against themselves...
Have you never heard of the secrecy of the ballot? ;)
Fabian wrote:
Or JXQ could just have voted for his own run and SM would have won despite being down 2-1 in author votes.
I disagree. What if there was somebody who saw them having an equal number of votes? And he didn't vote, but he would have voted if Metroid had had one vote more. The result would have been the same and I think this scenario isn't too unlikely.
Just out of curiosity, how many of them vote against themselves...
Have you never heard of the secrecy of the ballot? ;)
Fabian wrote:
Or JXQ could just have voted for his own run and SM would have won despite being down 2-1 in author votes.
I disagree. What if there was somebody who saw them having an equal number of votes? And he didn't vote, but he would have voted if Metroid had had one vote more. The result would have been the same and I think this scenario isn't too unlikely.
I dunno maybe I'm just misunderstanding but this sounds like an INCREDIBLY unlikely scenario to me. What you're saying is there is someone out there who really really wants the voting to end in a tie? He has absolutely no preference for one run or the other, and feels that ensuring that neither run wins is the best thing he can do with his vote?
I mean I'm not going to tell you that this is impossible because sure it's not. But I'd need pretty sweet odds to be betting on it.
Also, all this of course assumes that hypothesizing about what would have happened if bla bla whatever isn't a sort of stupid exercise to begin with. It just kinda seems like you're reaching here, I think.
I just wanted to point out that it's not possible to know what would have happened if JXQ had voted for his run. And I gave an example to explain why. Also note how I said "not too unlikely" (to be ignored) instead of "quite probable". No need to argue about it though, it's not important anyways.
Since we're all for making guesses here, I'm going to boldly predict that Super Metroid had beaten Mario 64 with one vote, if JXQ had voted for Super Metroid instead of whatever-it-was.
That gives me an idea, why not hide the voting results until voting has closed and then display the results, that way it avoids people holding votes back till the very end and casting them in the most influencial way.
That gives me an idea, why not hide the voting results until voting has closed and then display the results, that way it avoids people holding votes back till the very end and casting them in the most influencial way.
That's actually a good idea.
Kuwaga wrote:
Have you never heard of the secrecy of the ballot? ;)
Sure I have, my point was more about the fact that for authors, or generally any persons directly affiliated with a certain voting option, them voting for this option is effectively predefined (and thus known beforehand), which means any poll can theoretically be won just by having enough people directly affiliated with the option, perverting the majority rule and defeating the purpose of a poll in the first place. However, as AKA pointed out, this can be solved by a larger electorate. Indeed, voting for oneself is no big deal at all when the overall electorate is orders higher than amount of people affiliated with each particular option, but obviously, this is not the case here, as 2 out of 37 votes make 5.41%, which is pretty significant.
Of course, what's done is done, and I don't want to dispute nor discredit the voting results, but I think that for all future polls, the authors should be disqualified from voting for their own runs (I do believe this is fair) — at least until the voting audience grows, like, tenfold.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I like AKA's idea of hiding the votes as well. I figured it was impossible to do on these forum polls, so I never bothered to ask about it.
I don't have a problem with anyone voting for their own run. I would have voted for mine if I had liked it the best. Who authored which run is not important; the final products stand on their own.
This voting was just for fun and a little community discussion, both of which I think were accomplished, so it feels like a success to me.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
which means any poll can theoretically be won just by having enough people directly affiliated with the option, perverting the majority rule and defeating the purpose of a poll in the first place
I might have got this wrong, but are you saying it is bad if people who get an advantage by voting are allowed to vote? And boredom and ethnical reasons are the only valid reasons to cast a vote? This would be what I would call perverting the majority rule. Sorry if I've misinterpreted you.
It is a perverted concept anyway imo. People are allowed to vote, but are often not allowed to decide what options there are to vote for. And secondly, it puts extroverted leader-types at an advantage. (not really true for small internet polls like this one though)
If Bill who stays at home all day casts a vote, the chances are next to nil that it will change anything. He could as well stay home. What would be if all people thought like that? But the thing is, Bill's decision does have no effect on other people's decisions, whether he goes voting or not.
However, the votes of those guys in the bars who have an influence on their social circle seem to count a lot more. They can change the opinion of their whole village by (subconsciously) exerting peer pressure.
I don't know the solution to that problem, but it definitely exists. (the problem)
Saturn wrote:
I always was against the option that authors can vote for their own TASes. This is just pointless due to the obvious bias of them, so prohibiting authors from voting would definitely result in a more valid and cleaner poll.
I don't get how this would make the poll more valid. If every author votes for himself, nothing changes. If one votes against his own run, for whatever reason, he can do so. Prohibiting them from voting is like forcing them to vote for their own runs.
But I like the idea of hiding the votes a lot. ^^
Hiding votes till the end of the poll is definitely a good option to prevent peer pressure. I'm for it as well.
Regarding voting for his own TASes, I actually meant the case with submissions and whether they should be published or not polls. This "TAS of 2007" poll is different of course, and I agree, in this case it's the run itself that should be judged, and therefore it doesn't matter if the author votes for his own TAS or not.
I might have got this wrong, but are you saying it is bad if people who get an advantage by voting are allowed to vote? And boredom and ethnical reasons are the only valid reasons to cast a vote? This would be what I would call perverting the majority rule. Sorry if I've misinterpreted you.
It's easier for me to illustrate what I mean. Imagine a contest, in which several teams participate to create a certain product, and the winner is to be decided by a poll between these teams. Team A has 10 members, team B has two. They create the products they're supposed to, and vote on them. All members of team A vote for their product. All members of team B vote for theirs. What does this poll show in regards to the products themselves? Nothing. It's obviously exaggerated to illustrate the weak spot without wasting a lot of paper, so I believe you get the idea.
And yes, democracy is perverted by design, but it's a thing easiest to agree upon between all members of pretty much any given community. I've always been towards a small circle of people who know their shit™ to make decisions, rather than having a large circle of people, most of which are absolutely unrelated to the subject at hand, do it. :)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
That gives me an idea, why not hide the voting results until voting has closed and then display the results, that way it avoids people holding votes back till the very end and casting them in the most influencial way.
I COMPLETELY Agree with this one! Mind you, if we could've found someone who was an entirely unbiased 3rd party who could've taken in all the votes and announced them at the end. [Mind you that's tough to do]
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Just another random gamer
----
<OmnipotentEntity> How do you people get bored in the span of 10 seconds? Worst ADD ever.
I just did that kind of thing on my forum (PMing votes, counting them up) so if you need some grunt to do bean counting, I'm probably available.
...
It doesn't mean I agree with the idea, just if it actually happens I'd still be willing to help.
Too late for anything, but I just got the thought that the still-non-existent future LoZ:OoT run which will obsolete the current one should get an honorary "vaporware TAS of the year" award for being the TAS everyone knows will come and which will obsolete the current one, which everyone has been waiting for forever, but is still nowhere to be seen... :P
Bother Swordless Link. So far he's doing a great job on putting whatever WIPs people have been producing up to now to shame, but it seems it's pretty low on his priority list.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
