Note: Because of abuse that has happened, lurkers can't vote anymore.
Is this needed? I don't know how frequently greifers come to this website and try to vandalize things, so maybe this is a really easy yes from the admin, but maybe it isn't. Does the difference between 5 posts and 1 post and no posts really deter that many greifers, or do they just downvote and dig in theg arbage on youtube now and not bother with coming here?
So let's suppose the post requirement is no longer a deterrent to greifers, maybe it has some beneficial value anyway by forcing new users who want to participate to make a few posts - even the ones who have no intention of abuse. If they could be bothered to register and make a post just to let us know that "[they] can't vote yet, but if [they] could, it would be yes" then I think that's a big step taken towards getting a productive member. As for those who didn't register because all they wanted to do was click "yes", I guess there's no big loss because posts are more important than votes anyway, right? Well sure, unless that post is just to say that I voted yes, in which case I might as well just click the yes button.
That leads us to the point where judges emphasize over and over in the 50,000 tasvideos workbench voting system sucks my vote doesn't count boohoo topics, that posting your reasoning for a vote is significantly more important than simply voting and stating what you voted. It probably even says something to that effect in the rules or guidelines or whatever. But when I go to the workbench, and vote on a run, there is nothing there encouraging me to explain why I voted the way I did, so if I didn't read every topic on the entire forum and the rules and guidelines and judging guidelines (because I'm a judge and I would do that), I wouldn't know that my posts are more important than my vote since the first thing I see when entering the topic is Vote:. Encourage me to post, so I know I should! Something like Vote: Should this movie be published? (Please explain shortly!) might increase the thoughtful informative posts. Or maybe not, but it's pretty easy to try.
Onto my last thought: unknown lurkers are prevented from voting due to past abuses that weren't even theirs. Well established members who are part of the famed JXQrew (the "in crowd" so to speak)? Vote whatever you want for whatever irrelevant reason you want and nobody cares. Take, for example, the post that spurred me to make this topic I'm rapidly losing interest in: clicky. Deign voted no. I doubt anybody really cares. He's Deign, he stated his irrelevant reason, we move on. I could have come in and said
I agree with Deign
and voted no. And oh wow now two no votes! People might even be irked enough to say something, but I wouldn't really expect that because it wouldn't be anything less than what is expected from me anyway, so no big deal. Why not? Is the voting process only serious for new people who's sense of humor we haven't yet established? Do we assume the submitters won't mind the no% added to their permanent voting score profile screen?! But it gets worse! If my username was Warp and I made a comment that I thought was flippant and then voted no on that run, I'd be very surprised if someone didn't show up and tell me to shove off for abusing the vote system and casting a stupid and vandalous vote on a great run and trying to protect my old buddy Phil whether he's actually my old buddy or not! This double standard is unfair. Is the voting poll serious, or is it not? And if it is serious, why do we only treat it that way with most of the users most of the time?
PS: I posted this earlier today and it vanished! (Deleted? Eaten by the grue? Something else?) ctrl+v gives me try #2 imo
Did he actually vote no for that reason? Or was he making a joke, and someone else voted no instead?
I see a lot of "joke no" posts, but to actually do it for a reason like that seems rather petty. One should be judging the run, not the players associated with it.
First a movie gets submitted, and ends up accepted despite breaking rules other runs have been rejected for. And when I vote less than spectacularly on this movie, I become the victim of harassment and threats.
Yay, favoritism.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
In my view, votes are taken rather less seriously (by the majority of us) than they have been in the past.
That said, I don't think that making three posts is much of a barrier to entry for someone who's really interested in involving oneself in the community.
Think of it as "show you're really interested before you get to play with our toys".
I'm ambivalent. The only voting abuse in recent times was for the yearly awards, and not for submissions. If anyone feels that strongly about it, I say open it up.
However, I should note, when there are barely any posts to go by, I do look to votes to guide me.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
The voting system could be (at least in theory) changed so that you could vote only by posting (and your post must be non-empty). This would increase the amount of comments explaining the votes, but on the other hand it would also in some cases significantly decrease the signal-to-noise ratio of the voting thread, with tons and tons of "I voted yes" (and nothing else) posts which are useless. (There are certain TASes that have got over a hundred votes. Imagine if every single one was accompanied by a "I voted yes" post.)
jimsfriend wrote:
PS: I posted this earlier today and it vanished! (Deleted? Eaten by the grue? Something else?) ctrl+v gives me try #2 imo
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Then simply force posts to be more than just "I voted yes", if it's a special 'voting' post, then somehow force the user to explain why he liked the TAS, perhaps by a minimum post length or such.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Poll = Sensitive
Comments = Specific
....or something equally confusing....
EDIT: Meh, I'll expand. We have a poll to attain a quick breakdown of opinions. 20/1/1 and 8/7/5 paint two very clear pictures of the audiences perception of the submission. The comments are meant to expand on opinions, and that's about it. How much things need to be expanded on is really dependent on what the votes say. A clear consensus means your post likely means shit. Aww :( A mixed bag of votes means your comments are probably really important! Yay you!
By post length / number of words?
It is with great sadness that I regrettably must inform everyone that I vote "no" on this submission.
By number of sentences?
Hi. No vote. Thanks. Better luck next time.
By number of verbs?
I hope nobody gets disappointed by it being said that my vote is going to be "no".
I vote without posting sometimes if I have nothing to say beyond a token "I liked this" or "I didn't like this". I'm aware that my vote might not be as important as a well thought out argument for or against publication. If I were forced to come up with something to say I probably wouldn't bother to vote at all.
As for the original idea of the thread, it makes sense that only people who want to be involved with the site on some level get to have a say what winds up on the front page. Though a note encouraging people to post as well as vote is probably a good idea.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
jimsfriend wrote:
Deign voted no. I doubt anybody really cares. He's Deign, he stated his irrelevant reason, we move on.
But Deign didn't actually vote no. I can see your confusion though given there is precisely 1 (silent) no vote. But that was not him.
I probably have a lot to say about your post but it is a lot to digest, more than I have time to at this moment.
I did not actually vote no. And my opinion is that to vote one should be forced to make a post about the run as well. Also there shouldn't be allowed any voting on the run until at least the amount of time it takes to watch the run after it has been posted. While some people may have watched WIPs and stuff, I think it would be beneficial for people to just go ahead and watch the run in its entirety. Sometimes watching old parts after watching the newer parts can make mistakes in the old parts shine like the sun.
I'm sciencing as fast as I can !
______________________________________
<adelikat> once more balls enter the picture, everything gets a lot more entertraining
<adelikat> mmmmm yummy penises
I know! Let's get rid of voting polls and add a rating system instead!
Already done once!
I think the "<_<" in NitroGenesis's post implied he was being sarcastic. Unless you were being sarcastic too and I missed your point.
Deign wrote:
Also there shouldn't be allowed any voting on the run until at least the amount of time it takes to watch the run after it has been posted.
I once suggested this too, but it wasn't well received.
As for the post threshold before a newcomer can vote, I agree with it in general, but I think one post would be enough to differentiate bots and alt accounts from serious newcomers. This, or how they do it on Wikipedia, wait at least 3 days before one can edit semi-protected pages. Maybe a combination of the above (e.g. has made at least 3 posts, AND has been registered for at least a week).
P.S.:Warp wrote:
jimsfriend wrote:
PS: I posted this earlier today and it vanished! (Deleted? Eaten by the grue? Something else?) ctrl+v gives me try #2 imo
It's a big conspiracy, I tell you.
Tell me about it, I started to keep a log of the new posts being announced in irc so I can know when something disappears.
Joined: 6/5/2006
Posts: 188
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Deign wrote:
And my opinion is that to vote one should be forced to make a post about the run as well.
While I agree, I think it only applies when the vote in question diverges from the norm. And in the same vein, I'd like some insight into one's opinion if they vote yes on a movie with mostly negative feedback thus far.
Even the best player is limited by the speed of his fingers, or his mind's ability to control them. But what happens when speed is not a factor, when theory becomes reality?
Joined: 3/2/2010
Posts: 2174
Location: A little to the left of nowhere (Sweden)
While I do believe that one should write something to accompany the vote, it may not always be possible, not everyone here is an ace at English and may not like to post much to avoid sounding like a total retard. So while the idea in logic is good, it might fail in practice.
I do however agree that the text should be changed to something more encouraging like "Please write a short explanation to your vote" since it seems like the abuse part no longer is a problem.
This TAS depresses me so much that I am using a reaction image to convey my dismay towards this horrid beast.
