Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
[quote Memory]
EDIT: AranJaegar: It seems clear to me that it clearly means "support the notion that the movie is entertaining" given that the question asks about entertainment. There is no inherent meaning to "Support" that it automatically refers to acceptance.
[/quote]
Well in this case, I'm lead/forced to question why it does ask this specific (entertainment) question to begin with, as opposed to an acceptance question, considering (what I would deem to be a fact) that the rating system covers this more precisely. However, I'd admit that the latter, the rating system, might be less often frequented for this purpose, and in view of this situation which might come over as some sort of dilemma situation, I would suggest to allow already in the voting process to have a rating (on technical quality aswell as entertainment, the same way it is in the existing rating system) to be additionally but also just optionally done by voters (maybe hidden for the majority until the end of the voting, or very well also beyond that, considering how it is done with the existing rating system), such that as soon as a movie is accepted, (provided a movie does get accepted) the pre-existing ratings are immediately, automatically carried over to the existing rating system (where they might belong to).
Edit: In short, my main point is, if the voting question asks about the entertainment, and the rating system already covering this in a more differentiated manner, then there's a redundancy, and the latter fits better for gauging how entertaining a viewer finds a TAS. So, if the rating system anyways covers entertainment and technical quality with more steps between the extremal options, then why even ask the voting question when it (provided this is true) isn't meant to cover the question of support for site acceptance?
2nd edit: To go a bit more into the detail on what I mean by the above redundancy: If one intends to check out a TAS and rate it (from 0 to 10, both ends included), then why let them in the voting process initially choose between the 3 options ''no'', ''meh'', ''yes'' (which maybe could be interpreted to cover the respective ranges 0 - 3.333... = ''no'', 3.333... - 6.666... = ''meh'', 6.666... - 10 = ''yes'')? And if this is not meant to have any meaning for acceptance (or also technical quality, which though the voting guidelines page makes it seem as if the technical aspect also is meant to be part of this), then why have them first do this rough estimation of the personally viewed entertainment before they can or would evaluate the entertainment with the more precise rating system?
collect, analyse, categorise.
"Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;)
Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on.
1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans.
2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai.
(last updated: 18.03.2018)
What's with this decision to skip questions from staff about your suggestions to staff, HappyLee?
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about...
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
What's with this decision to skip questions from staff about your suggestions to staff, HappyLee?
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about...
feos wrote:
HappyLee wrote:
I think maybe under circumstances like this, some administrator should come up and say something like: "People, place your votes seriously, and don't let your feelings take over the facts" (except I can't express it well).
Which circumstances exactly?
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
I think maybe under circumstances like this, some administrator should come up and say something like: "People, place your votes seriously, and don't let your feelings take over the facts" (except I can't express it well).
Which circumstances exactly?
I think that's really obvious. Surely Nach and p4wn3r knew what I was talking about.
HappyLee wrote:
I'm just not happy with so many people not voting seriously in this particular case. It happens to be the run I value the most, which happens to be a run that shouldn't be controversial at all.
Nach wrote:
The problem here is that some people are not voting on the run at all, they're voting on what they liked or disliked about what you had to say regarding SMB and TASing in the past couple of weeks. They'll even make up excuses why they voted the way they did instead of just outright saying "I'm angry at you because I don't like what you've written recently, and penalizing all your SMB submissions because of it." (yet in their own minds not necessarily see it as an excuse, they may 100% believe they don't like the run)
p4wn3r wrote:
That's exactly what people were saying at the thread at the time, and instead of addressing the issue, all responses were like "yeah, the poll is like that. it's not appropriate of you to complain about that. stop calling out the voters."
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Ah I see now. It makes sense to tell people not to vote out of spite. It also makes sense to tell them to only limit their feedback in posts to actual movie contents. Discussing things not related to TASing of the game in question is basically off-topic in the Workbench. And explicit off-topic discussions can be just split, like it happened here.
As for investigating and punishing...
p4wn3r wrote:
Given that this submission has received an unusual amount of negative votes, we decided to investigate.
Where should the borderline for this be? Suspecting unfair feedback is a valid concern. But if there's no clear and sensible borderline to unfair feedback that has to be investigated, then requesting such investigations can also become abusive.
For example, some people suggest that cancellation in this case was done to manipulate the feedback and make people feel sorry. I don't know to what degree this is true, but that's how this decision was partially taken.
p4wn3r wrote:
However, in this case, suppose you open up the "No" votes and it appears that all come from users with the same IP address. That would be conclusive evidence that manipulation took place. Since it is possible for the violation to exist, it's not a witch-hunt.
This is already a ban case. Multiple accounts are not allowed exactly because they can be used to manipulate votes and ratings (and forum feedback). And this indeed can happen upon request.
p4wn3r wrote:
When do you start an investigation? When there's sufficient suspicion that a crime/violation happened. As was pointed out by many in the original thread, submissions such as those are usually uncontroversial, and the number of No/Meh was unusually large. There was nothing unusual with the number of Yes votes.
None of this can serve as a policy. Relying on "usual" and "unusual" will not work, because those do not imply clear cut. They depend on one's notion, personal definition of these 2 words. Even if we try to define them once and for all, these terms are in their nature subjective.
Additionally, controversy shouldn't be relevant to feedback. If there's some past controversy that affects feedback, without people explicitly mentioning it as their voting reasons, it's impossible to determine that their feedback is based on controversy. If there's some current controversy, it should be split as off-topic. And only if it's unrelated to actual movie contents.
So far, "usually uncontroversial" and "unusually controversial" don't sound like a principle for a policy.
Here's what we have right now:
Site Rules wrote:
Abuse of the Voting/Rating System
People are free to vote however they want on submissions. However, users abusing the system for reasons that are clearly and intentionally beyond the scope of the movie in question will be dealt with. Additionally, rating multiple movies by the same author as a form of promotion or degradation will also be dealt with. As noted, this will only be in cases of clear, intentional, and obvious abuse.
Do you want any of this to change?
p4wn3r wrote:
Instead, we get lots of philosophical arguments about art [...] which lead nowhere at all.
This is outright false. In a thread where people are supposed to discuss one's artistic decisions in a TAS, on the site that is supposed to host these pieces of work and encourage people to be creative, talking about TAS art is 100% legit.
As for professionalism, what I said was closely related to this advice:
Nach wrote:
I recommend trying to understand why they're upset (even though it may be irrational), and working to make them less upset. Also don't take the negativity you see about your run so seriously, not everyone is being objective at the moment.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Essentially, if you spend months making a run and explaining how everything does, you should be open to people bashing it without knowing anything useful.
But if you just spend 20 minutes watching a movie, then you are free to write and vote whatever you want for any reason, because it is not acceptable to say that their criticism is dumb. Youtube users that scream "Cheats!" at every TAS should find this policy very nice!
I am surprised to see you use this approach to articulate your arguments. I don't think irony is the most clear or elegant way to get your point accross. Then again, my impression is that in recent times your posts have become notably bitterer than they used to be, so it might be related to that. I honestly just hope that your recent exposure to Europe hasn't had anything to do with that. :(
That said, I am again quite surprised that that's your conclusion after reading that thread, as many of the people criticizing HappyLee's style in it were constructive, provided perfectly valid points to back up their opinions and even went out of their way to try and tone their replies down to prevent HappyLee from feeling unhappy. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful because the latter turned out to be impossible.
The only possible explanation that I can think of for this is that the replies that weren't so civil stood out for you, so you focused on them and ended up forgetting about all the proper criticism I mentioned above. That's why your usage of terms like "bashing" seems hyperbolic to me, or, in other words, inaccurate to describe what really happened.
because it is not acceptable to say that their criticism is dumb
I don't think anybody sane in that topic suggested that. Level-headed people were mostly complaining because they didn't think HappyLee's arguments to counter their criticism were sound, not because of his addressing of their criticism per se.
The impression I get from your posts is that you think that the author isn't even partially accountable for the way the topic went down, which is as if I claimed that all the no votes had to do with the run itself. Both are quite evidently not the case.
Nach wrote:
The problem here is that some people are not voting on the run at all, they're voting on what they liked or disliked about what you had to say regarding SMB and TASing in the past couple of weeks.
How is that the problem when you are the judge and are aware of that, which means that it will have no impact in your decision? I think the real problem here is that criticism properly backed up wasn't accepted by one author, so people started to complain about it, derailing the topic as a result.
Submission polls have been quite successful for years at their goal of gauging people's interest for runs, especially in recent times, with the many submissions that get less than three posters giving feedback. I can't believe that a single author's refusal to accept a minority of no votes properly explained led to the questioning of submission polls as a whole, which are factually useful and a necessary feature.
AzumaK wrote: I swear my 1 year old daughter's favorite TASVideo is your R4MI run :3
xxNKxx wrote: ok thanks handsome feos :D
Help improving TASVideos!
I am surprised to see you use this approach to articulate your arguments. I don't think irony is the most clear or elegant way to get your point accross. Then again, my impression is that in recent times your posts have become notably bitterer than they used to be, so it might be related to that. I honestly just hope that your recent exposure to Europe hasn't had anything to do with that. :(
I will not answer remarks like this. If I write anything that's offensive, please point out that I will do my best to understand. However, I don't argue about style.
@feos:
The problem is not what the rules already say. The thing is, that if you don't investigate, you give the impression to people that you are covering up. What the rules say is useless if you never investigate anyone.
feos wrote:
Where should the borderline for this be? Suspecting unfair feedback is a valid concern. But if there's no clear and sensible borderline to unfair feedback that has to be investigated, then requesting such investigations can also become abusive.
I really don't see how a "borderline" would help. Say you make a borderline that if someone makes three offensive posts a week you will investigate for trolling. Then someone starts making two offensive posts every week so that you don't investigate. See the problem?
Besides, I really don't see what is abusive about sending a PM to some people asking "It was alleged that you voted on this submission to degrade the author. Is this true?". It's definitely easier than having long-winded arguments about the poll that somehow failed to stop drama in submission threads for all these years. Even if people admitted voting unfairly, the punishment would be just a warning anyway. I have seen people in threads reply that voted Yes without watching a movie, and were just warned by other forumers. To my knowledge, no one is asking for more rigorous punishing.
Can you please state clearly how we should determine if the case needs investigation in the first place?
p4wn3r wrote:
Besides, I really don't see what is abusive about sending a PM to some people asking "It was alleged that you voted on this submission to degrade the author. Is this true?".
I never said that can be abusive. Requesting investigations can be abusive.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Besides, I really don't see what is abusive about sending a PM to some people asking "It was alleged that you voted on this submission to degrade the author. Is this true?".
I'll be completely honest. If I was falsely accused of this, I would feel rather threatened and not welcome. It means that if I don't like something that somebody else likes, I'm automatically assumed of being biased against the author. I would rather good faith be assumed except in the overwhelming case to the contrary.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Dude, there's never a well-defined set of criteria about when to start an investigation. Do you like the idea of doing investigations over whether you should start an investigation? Or maybe doing an investigation over whether you should start an investigation to determine if the case needs an investigation?
In practice, it goes like this: if someone requests the investigation, and you deny it, and eventually another party determines that there was indeed a problem, that makes you automatically an accomplice. So, usually you tend to investigate most things and ask people to not take it personally. Of course, in this forum we are not dealing with lots of money, so this is more of an inconvenience.
But take the case of rotten tomatoes for example. Suppose a studio suspects that a rival is creating facebook bots to review-bomb their movie, and Rotten Tomatoes replies that there's no need to investigate. Then they hire a private investigator who proves this is happening. Now they can sue Rotten Tomatoes for millions of dollars, even if their staff never review-bombed the movie.
Thanks for constantly comparing a site where people willingly share their work under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license to all sorts of commercial organizations' problems. Your examples don't help us come up with better policies. You even explicitly refuse to suggest a sensible rule that can be enforced on the site globally.
Since you're not suggesting any official improvements, your posts are basically just counter-productive whines.
- This site needs to censor votes!
- On what basis?
- I don't know (nor care).
And after all the explanations about little meaning of votes here, about vanishingly small possibility to abuse them for real and successfully, about lack of irreversible damage this may cause, you still religiously believe that this censoring should be enforced even when rules are not obviously broken.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
In practice, it goes like this: if someone requests the investigation, and you deny it, and eventually another party determines that there was indeed a problem, that makes you automatically an accomplice. So, usually you tend to investigate most things and ask people to not take it personally. Of course, in this forum we are not dealing with lots of money, so this is more of an inconvenience.
I understand your concerns about voting abuse; we should all be concerned (to a practical degree) about such abuse.
It appears to me that the site staff has taken necessary and appropriate actions in the past when such abuse has been suspected and confirmed.
I disagree with your assertion that a lack of an investigation makes them accomplice though. The staff may simply have not seen validity in the claim. Just because a 3rd party does find fraudulent activity later doesn't make the staff complicit in the abuse.
The problem is that, you are asking for more investigations into voting abuse without addressing how those investigations should be requested.
The suggestion of voting abuse in the SMB run stemmed from an author who couldn't accept that the community response to his submission didn't turn out exactly as he suspected it (no one said he couldn't believe that). BUT, he then publicly tried to blame that differing result on previous drama within the community--which is unprovable even if an investigation were carried out. Further, he never requested an investigation...just kept publicly complaining that the results couldn't be accurate even when presented with reasons that it could be. Thus drama exploded into about 8 different topics.
Regarding inivestigations: There's nothing stopping site staff from investigating anything they perceive as odd. But placing the impetus on the staff to investigate any/all random sumbission's voting is backwards.
If an author (or anyone else) suspects abuse for any given submission, the impetus is on them to request an investigation; and that call to investigate should come in the form of a private request to the staff, not a public outcry within the submission discussion. As can be seen with the submission that stemmed this topic, making a public accusation of abuse leads to a whole mess of off-topic forum posts (at least regarding the submission in question) that dilutes the discussion of the submitted run.
tl;dr:
The impetus for initiating an investigation of a specific vote tally is not on the staff, it's the responsibility of the community members to privately request investigations of potential abuse. THEN it becomes the responsibility of the staff to determine if the claim is valid enough to warrant an investigation. A decision not to investigate does not equate to complicity in any (later discovered) abuse, simply a decision that investigation did not appear warranted at the time of the request.
EDIT: To the staff: Even though this topic itself was branched from the submission topic....It appears we've already gotten off-topic regarding "the point of submission polling." Should all the discussion here regarding investigation of voting abuse be branched off again into its own topic?
Since you're not suggesting any official improvements, your posts are basically just counter-productive whines.
I am very happy by the recent revelations that my posts have many readers. I didn't know I was so influencial. I find it nice that in such a short time span I've read that my posts are well articulated and now that they are counterproductive whines. Such feedback is what every respectable person dreams of. Thank you.
I don't know why you are saying that I'm wanting the site to censor votes. What I suggested is to stop making them anonymous, but since at this point it's just text interpretation skills, I don't think it's worth talking about it.
For the record, I do whine a lot. Especially at my printer, it does not work very well. But the fact that some people at an internet website have difficulties handling complaints is at most a minor annoyance to me.
Definition of censorcensored; censoring
- to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
- to suppress or delete as objectionable
This is exactly what you want the site to do with voting system, you just refuse to provide the definition of "objectionable" to go by.
p4wn3r wrote:
What I suggested is to stop making them anonymous
This is a different topic. Making them public simply discourages people from voting, because this info can trivially be abused by literally anyone. You never provided reasons and examples of damage that would justify this.
p4wn3r wrote:
since at this point it's just text interpretation skills, I don't think it's worth talking about it
It is the skills of thinking rationally and reading carefully. If you can't afford that, it's okay.
p4wn3r wrote:
But the fact that some people at an internet website have difficulties handling complaints is at most a minor annoyance to me.
Stop blaming people on a web site. You've been asked for sensible suggestions repeatedly, repeatedly refused to provide them, only to repeat useless whines. TASVideos staff is always ready for productive criticism, because our goal is making this site a good place for TAS artists and other enthusiasts. Your plans regarding this site are by far the contrary.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Is this a joke? That post gives the definition of an investigation. I am not suggesting anything to be done with the voting system.
feos wrote:
Stop blaming people on a web site. You've been asked for sensible suggestions repeatedly, repeatedly refused to provide them, only to repeat useless whines.
I'm sorry. Now you are simply lying. Let me remind you what actually happened. You asked me for suggestions in this thread, and I immediately replied that I thought a good idea was to abolish anonymity. If I am repeating this, it's simply because you refuse to understand this and keep repeating that I'm wanting you to censor votes, and I really don't know why you are saying this.
Later, I suggested that you could avoid drama by investigating the matter. A sensible reply to this is "I did not think there was enough to warrant an investigation in this particular case". Instead, for some unknown reason, you say that it's not appropriate to request an investigation unless I, of all users of this site, provide you with concrete guidelines on when to start or not start an investigation.
I don't know why you are obsessed with me, a regular user, having to provide advice to you. Are you willing to pay for these services? In that case, I might consider that.
I don't find investigation for this particular case necessary, since it's not that hard to figure it out using common sense. Nach has already provided a perfectly good explanation, and even though it's just his assumption and really hard to prove it, I find it a fair assumption.
I think the first step of fixing a problem is to admit there is a problem. Although many statistics suggest that there's something unusual about the amount of negative votes for this particular submission, and clearly I'm not the only one noticing this, but what's even more disappointing is that many people refused to admit there is a problem and tried to justify the voting result, while blaming me for all what's happened. This could make my run look as if it deserves so many negative votes, and make me look crazy instead of the victim of an unfair voting result.
p4wn3r has already suggested a solution satisfying to me, even if it doesn't require investigation, and just with an administrator or a judge reminding people to vote rationally and based on the movie. I don't think such solution would offend anyone, and would definitely prevent the situation from getting worse.
feos wrote:
...because our goal is making this site a good place for TAS artists and other enthusiasts.
I have to say, as a TAS artist, I'm disappointed this time, and even somewhat regretted submitting our run here. I don't like to be constantly blamed by many people over trivial things, neither does our hard work. Criticisms are OK, as long as they are fair and rational. But this time, having to argue over a run that shouldn't be controversial at all really upsets me.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Is this a joke? That post gives the definition of an investigation. I am not suggesting anything to be done with the voting system.
p4wn3r wrote:
Memory wrote:
This to me is the definition of a witch hunt
Absolutely not. The difference between an investigation and a witch-hunt is that, in a witch-hunt the crime/violation is imaginary. It's impossible for the accused to be guilty, therefore investigating an imaginary crime is the same as harassment.
However, in this case, suppose you open up the "No" votes and it appears that all come from users with the same IP address. That would be conclusive evidence that manipulation took place. Since it is possible for the violation to exist, it's not a witch-hunt.
When do you start an investigation? When there's sufficient suspicion that a crime/violation happened. As was pointed out by many in the original thread, submissions such as those are usually uncontroversial, and the number of No/Meh was unusually large. There was nothing unusual with the number of Yes votes.
If this post doesn't even try to talk about actions staff is supposed to do regarding submission voting, then I stand corrected.
p4wn3r wrote:
feos wrote:
Stop blaming people on a web site. You've been asked for sensible suggestions repeatedly, repeatedly refused to provide them, only to repeat useless whines.
I'm sorry. Now you are simply lying. Let me remind you what actually happened. You asked me for suggestions in this thread, and I immediately replied that I thought a good idea was to abolish anonymity. If I am repeating this, it's simply because you refuse to understand this and keep repeating that I'm wanting you to censor votes, and I really don't know why you are saying this..
This indeed happened. And my detailed reply tells why voting abuse potential is vanishingly small. I addressed this once again in the post you're replying to, but for whatever esoteric reason you don't want to discuss your original idea. Your later posts don't mention anything that can't be done without making the votes public. But they mention enough impossible to implement and controversial things.
p4wn3r wrote:
Later, I suggested that you could avoid drama by investigating the matter. A sensible reply to this is "I did not think there was enough to warrant an investigation in this particular case".
This "sensible" reply would mean that my personal opinion on this is perfectly well-thought and reliable. I don't make bald claims like this without seeing reasons to think so. Maybe there was enough. Maybe there wasn't. You never know without official ways to determine this.
p4wn3r wrote:
Instead, for some unknown reason, you say that it's not appropriate to request an investigation unless I, of all users of this site, provide you with concrete guidelines on when to start or not start an investigation.
This is the key to this whole issue. I look from the perspective of a person who wants to resolve these problems officially. Because of that I always try to find pros and cons to any idea, on the long run. If something is inapplicable, it should be figured out in discussion. If something isn't fine-tuned to the point common staff agreement, then it won't work and it won't become a policy. Staff agreement implies user agreement as well, but is not limited to it. If you are not ready to properly discuss your own ideas, don't expect us to do the mental leg work for you.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
If this post doesn't even try to talk about actions staff is supposed to do regarding submission voting, then I stand corrected.
Wait, so by "censoring votes" you actually mean that I suggested that the site should censor votes from sockpuppet accounts? Then, by all means, yes, I do suggest that these votes should be censored. Don't you do that already?
feos wrote:
p4wn3r wrote:
feos wrote:
Stop blaming people on a web site. You've been asked for sensible suggestions repeatedly, repeatedly refused to provide them, only to repeat useless whines.
I'm sorry. Now you are simply lying. Let me remind you what actually happened. You asked me for suggestions in this thread, and I immediately replied that I thought a good idea was to abolish anonymity. If I am repeating this, it's simply because you refuse to understand this and keep repeating that I'm wanting you to censor votes, and I really don't know why you are saying this..
This indeed happened. And my detailed reply tells why voting abuse potential is vanishingly small. I addressed this once again in the post you're replying to, but for whatever esoteric reason you don't want to discuss your original idea. Your later posts don't mention anything that can't be done without making the votes public. But they mention enough impossible to implement and controversial things.
Please, stop this. I discussed the idea with you on another post. It's fine if you did not want to, but don't suddenly put the blame on me.
feos wrote:
This is the key to this whole issue. I look from the perspective of a person who wants to resolve these problems officially. Because of that I always try to find pros and cons to any idea, on the long run. If something is inapplicable, it should be figured out in discussion. If something isn't fine-tuned to the point common staff agreement, then it won't work and it won't become a policy. Staff agreement implies user agreement as well, but is not limited to it. If you are not ready to properly discuss your own ideas, don't expect us to do the mental leg work for you.
Really? To me it looks like you're just JAQing off so that you can make me look incompetent and at the same time avoid doing your job. I should remind you that it's not my job to do mental leg work for the staff. When I write something about site policy, I am not in fact making a submission for rule changes, I am simply writing something about the site policy. You can address it or ignore it, I really don't mind. But, please, don't keep coming to me for a solution to your problems. That's consulting, and in the real world, people charge money for that.
Please, stop this. I discussed the idea with you on another post. It's fine if you did not want to, but don't suddenly put the blame on me.
Let's see...
p4wn3r wrote:
In any case, all the problems could be solved by simply revealing the names behind the votes (Facebook reveals the name of people who liked something because it's so easy to manipulate). If that information is public, it is the community's problem if they fall for the manipulation.
I mentioned the problems with this and remained unheard:
feos wrote:
Making them public simply discourages people from voting, because this info can trivially be abused by literally anyone. You never provided reasons and examples of damage that would justify this.
p4wn3r wrote:
To me it looks like you're just JAQing off so that you can make me look incompetent and at the same time avoid doing your job.
Sorry, this is called discussion.
p4wn3r wrote:
When I write something about site policy, I am not in fact making a submission for rule changes, I am simply writing something about the site policy. You can address it or ignore it, I really don't mind. But, please, don't keep coming to me for a solution to your problems.
I never had problems with "suspiciously and unusually high amount of negative votes - 8 out of 72".
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Criticisms are OK, as long as they are fair and rational. But this time, having to argue over a run that shouldn't be controversial at all really upsets me.
Lee, continually emphasizing your perspective that all this "shouldn't be controversial" only furthers the idea that you think there's a major problem simply because what has happened didn't line up with your personal expectations.
It obviously has been controversial...which only serves to prove your assertion that it "shouldn't be controversial" is incorrect.
As far as your original expectations on the run: There's nothing wrong anticipating a particular response. The problem exists when you staunchly and publicly assert that things are awry simply BECAUSE they are different than your expectations.
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
You've got to get to the point where you either:
1) Consider that your original expectations weren't as accurate as you anticipated.
2) Accept that the voting results are what they are (regardless of whether votes were cast for submission based or personal reasons); but the results as they are aren't like to endanger the run of being dropped a tier.
If all the arguing (that the run shouldn't be controversial and that the negative/neutral votes aren't valid) isn't likely to change the resulting publication tier; there is no reason to continue griping about the vote counts. Doing so only makes it appear that you are concerned with the vote percentages for personal accreditation/acclaim (in other words, your ego).
By all means be proud of your work, you should be; you've accomplished what many considered impossible! But don't try to force others to give you acclaim by complaining and insinuating fraud when others don't agree with you (regardless of their reasons why).
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
The problem here is that some people are not voting on the run at all, they're voting on what they liked or disliked about what you had to say regarding SMB and TASing in the past couple of weeks.
How is that the problem when you are the judge and are aware of that, which means that it will have no impact in your decision?
You're taking that quote out of context. I am perfectly aware of what's going on, I'm ignoring the poll itself, and I can judge the nature of the various posts whether they pertain to the run or not, and whether they make sense or not.
"The problem here" is a response to the prior post by the author about how he should view the negativity on a personal level, and some advice how to reconcile with others.
Zeupar wrote:
I think the real problem here is that criticism properly backed up wasn't accepted by one author, so people started to complain about it, derailing the topic as a result.
That's a one sided view of what happened. The only correct understanding of the "real problem" involves seeing all the sides.
Zeupar wrote:
Submission polls have been quite successful for years at their goal of gauging people's interest for runs, especially in recent times, with the many submissions that get less than three posters giving feedback. I can't believe that a single author's refusal to accept a minority of no votes properly explained led to the questioning of submission polls as a whole, which are factually useful and a necessary feature.
This didn't lead to it. It's happened a number of times. Even one of the people who responded in the thread with a simple "I agree" is someone who intentionally goes around voting the opposite of others in every poll just to make a point about how useless the poll is. Someone else did something similar some years back, although got really nasty about it and was banned.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
but what's even more disappointing is that many people refused to admit there is a problem and tried to justify the voting result
Let me assume you're correct for the sake of this discussion, and there is a problem people are refusing to admit, they may not be aware of it. People often make decisions without being consciously aware of why they made a decision. It's clear by the way people have responded and the raw attitude in their posts that at the moment they are angry with you. This anger may subconsciously influence how they view anything they know you made.
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site, presented in what appears to be an honest reaction to your video, I'm fairly certain several people are trying to rationalize their decision (psychology) without being aware of the bias they're applying.
If I am correct about this, those people are incapable of admitting there is a problem, they aren't able to see it.
HappyLee wrote:
while blaming me for all what's happened.
This is also commonly a known psychological outcome of what I just described.
HappyLee wrote:
This could make my run look as if it deserves so many negative votes, and make me look crazy instead of the victim of an unfair voting result.
You're right!
In order to deal with this, please try to understand what happened. The more you understand the psychology of what's going on, the less it will bother you.
However, I don't think "unfair" is the right word to describe the result. Since the result is based on non-perfect humans voting, given the situation, this would be the outcome, as you cannot divorce all the viewers from their numerous feelings.
Now your run probably does not deserve as many negative votes as it got, but that's how people are viewing it at the moment. If you went over to the people who voted no, gave them a hug, and told them "no hard feelings, let's be friends", I'd bet some of them would subconsciously suddenly like your video more than they did the first time around.
This is life, understand it, and it becomes more enjoyable.
HappyLee wrote:
an administrator or a judge reminding people to vote rationally and based on the movie. I don't think such solution would offend anyone, and would definitely prevent the situation from getting worse.
But people don't vote rationally! Please try to understand the psychology I described above.
While I don't mind telling people to please vote rationally and on the movie itself, it's unlikely it will change anything. People coming up with some really absurd justifications for disliking it shows they aren't even aware of how irrational they're being.
HappyLee wrote:
I'm disappointed this time, and even somewhat regretted submitting our run here.
Please don't regret submitting, most of us like you! Even the ones who are angry with you probably will like you once again too after they calm down.
HappyLee wrote:
neither does our hard work.
I'd bet you that some people didn't even realize you had a co-author on the movie, nor how much he contributed. If some of them realized they're penalizing him too, I bet they wouldn't have voted as they did.
HappyLee wrote:
as long as they are fair and rational
Humans aren't fair and rational!!!
HappyLee wrote:
But this time, having to argue over a run that shouldn't be controversial at all really upsets me.
Please understand they are upset to for their own reasons. If you can work with others to make them less upset, the run would suddenly become less controversial, even though the run itself is not at fault.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
The bolded section is what I'm going to refer to as "mindreading".
Your post as a whole shows that you're not taking into account the psychology of what is going on (not that you should be expected to, few people are students of psychology). However, in general, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what HappyLee is feeling.
Let me share with you a personal experience.
When I was in school, I was an exceptionally good student. I got perfect scores on every kind of test (unless I was absent a few days and ended up with a test on material I wasn't there for). I got perfect scores on my graded homework. I won every school competition I was in. I won practically every award they had for everything. My report cards were straight As, aside from penmanship. My teachers wrote glowing reviews, aside from comments like "Nach doesn't smile enough".
So in college, I'm continuing my streak, and in one programming course where they graded the homeworks, I was getting a 100 on each. Suddenly one week, I got a 99.5 on homework. I was absolutely bewildered. What did I do to lose half a point? Half a point? How does one lose half a point? What kind of messed up grading system is this?
I tracked down which grader marked that particular homework, and showed it to him and asked him why he decided to take off half a point? How could my responses on my homework been better? He responded that he didn't like how in one area I used one technique, and in another area which was similar, I used a different technique, and I should be consistent in my work. I asked him if he actually knew the difference between the two techniques and when one should be preferred over the other (which is why I used one in one case, and the other method for the other). He told me he wasn't actually sure of the difference, and thereby demonstrated I knew more about the material than he did, and was grading me on. I explained to him the difference and why I used each, and he refused to fix my grade because he wasn't familiar with anything I was talking about. I went absolutely ballistic, I was super upset for days afterwords.
I wasn't upset because I got a 99.5, it's a fantastic positive response, nothing to be upset about. It wasn't because it was less than I got previously. I was upset because I tried my best as I always do for things I care about, and this guy who doesn't even understand the material as well as I do was taking off half a point for bogus reasons. He made it seem like I didn't try my hardest, which I know is absolutely not true. His suggestion for improving it (consistency), would actually worsen the quality of what I was doing, as it meant using suboptimal solutions for bogus reasons. By his own admission, he would have awarded a perfect score to each area if he had seen them in isolation.
I'm not going to mindread HappyLee here, but I suspect his reason for being upset is closer to my reason for being upset about that 99.5 than the reason you're suggesting.
Oh and in case you're wondering, the 99.5 thing no longer bothers me. I've since grown up and come to better understand how humans work, and realize that undeserved scores on a single homework are nothing to get worked up about, even though I'm still not enthusiastic about that particular grader's style.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Sorry for sweetening up, but this is exactly the thing I tried to address in the post about professionalism. The world is imperfect, it always was, it will forever be. People are imperfect. It is impossible to fix or work around all problems. It is impossible to prevent all abuse. It is impossible to make everyone happy.
Getting upset over getting imperfect outcome despite doing everything perfectly is natural. And at the same time it's a psychological problem. While to some degree it can be helped by wise actions made by others, expecting everyone to be wise is unrealistic.
Remaining calm when your perfect peace of work is being unreasonably criticized may feel like a victim being blamed. And neither of these helps anyone with anything. Unwise decisions coming out of this feeling won't help anyone with anything.
This is objective reality, it can't be directly fought. But it opens possibilities for raising upon yourself. Even if this doesn't improve the situation, it improves the notion you have.
General "you", no one in particular.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Soooo...getting back to the actual title of this topic.
Is there enough perceived confusion about polls (specifically, but not limited to the 'meh' option) for the staff to consider a change of any type? Or is the general consensus that what we have is good enough and doesn't need changing?
Personally, I think the available answers unfortunately cause the poll to be utilized by voters from both a perspective of entertainment (as it's written/intended) but also as meaning "should this be published?" (which is not up to the community, but the judge).
I think (as I suggested before) that a poll regarding the degree of entertainment may be better than the yes/no/meh options for "did you find this entertaining?"
