Topic by Warp

Posted: 10/14/2010 3:26 AM

Post subject: Re: Voting "no" as a form of protest

Quote

Mitjitsu

He/Him

Banned User

Joined: 4/24/2006
Posts: 2997

mz wrote:

I'm not here for absolute perfection, I'm here to watch full walkthroughs of games.

I'll say no more...

Posted: 10/14/2010 7:04 AM

Post subject: Re: Voting "no" as a form of protest

Quote

Warp

Banned User

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

mz wrote:

You care about the frame count; I don't. That's it.

I find that claim to be rather ironic, given that I have been one of the loudest proponents of diminishing the importance of raw frame counts when rating movies for their technical quality (which doesn't mean frame counts should not be taken into account at all; I mean that it should be just one of several technical aspects of the run, when rating it for technical quality). The SM64 submission is a significant improvement over the currently published run on TASing techniques besides raw frame count. And reading the comments on the submission thread, it's also quite entertaining to many.

Posted: 10/14/2010 7:14 AM

Quote

True

Editor, Player (69)

Joined: 1/18/2008
Posts: 663

Then vote Yes and be done with it?

true on twitch - lsnes windows builds 20230425 - the date this site is buried

Posted: 10/14/2010 8:56 AM

Quote

Dragonfangs

Active player (378)

Joined: 6/5/2006
Posts: 188
Location: Malmö, Sweden

I do agree with Warp that when voting on a submission, you should vote for that submission and not something kind of related to it. But that is exactly what mz is doing so I don't really see why he gets all the flak :S. As far as I see, mz does not like seeing the same run over and over again, he does not think the new SM64 is different enough to justify a publication so he votes no. While you may disagree with that opinion(I do, it would seem a majority of the site does as well), he is VOTING on a poll with a SUBJECTIVE question and he is actually answering the question (he does not think the run should be published), so I don't see how that is in anyway against any kind of rule, strict, unspoken, moral or otherwise. However, I think I saw a couple of comments similar to: "While I don't have a problem with this submission..." or "I don't mind if this run is published but...". If that is the case then obviously you shouldn't vote no, because you're voting on the wrong topic. The poll question (currently) is "Should the run be published", nothing else. And I know that for the current SM64 run, these no votes aren't gonna matter much because of it's overwhelming positive feedback. However, consider a more low profile run getting a ton of "Well, this run is okay, but the company that made the game mostly make shit games so I vote no in protest"? And a year later when someone points back to that run and says: "Well that run got published even though it had 70% no votes, voting system is garbage". Make sure the vote you're casting is actually answering the poll in question guys :P. "Was movie X any good?" "Well I didn't like popcorn I had when I watched it, so no".

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?

Posted: 10/14/2010 9:18 AM

Quote

Flygon

Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria

Part of me thinks that forcing a specific vote to be tied to a specific post might be a good idea. A post must be made to vote, and the vote must be tied to the post. It probably isn't trivial with the forum software, though...

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:43 AM

Post subject: Re: Voting "no" as a form of protest

Quote

rhebus

Joined: 2/19/2010
Posts: 248

mz wrote:

This is an improvement that I like, but not because it's ~25 seconds faster, but because it's different enough: different styles, more creative, funnier (to some people), more players, etc.

You keep saying two things in this and other threads: 1. SM64 is in the queue too often, and 2. the current workbench movie is not different enough from its previous publication. Point 1. is objectively false. If you can't improve a movie which was published 2 years ago, that leaves very little room for making improvements to any movies at all. (Even if it were true that SM64 is updated too regularly, I don't think it's a valid reason to reject an improvement.) Point 2. is subjective, but in my mind false too. It is noticably different to its predecessor. The framecount is just one part of it -- it uses new glitches, new techniques, and the endless staircase sequence is an absolute gem. To say the movie is too similar to its predecessor by any standard approaching objectivity would also reject a large proportion of improvements on this site. The most recent SMW wouldn't qualify (mostly the same, apart from the block dup glitch), the most recent castlevania aria of sorrow 100% wouldn't qualify (basically the same route, more tightly optimized with one or two new tricks; most of the improvement is from skipping the claimh solais), the latest golden axe wouldn't qualify (the action is mostly similar, despite strong improvements). Yet these are all movies I think are both entertaining in their own right, and solid improvements to their predecessors. Your claimed criteria for rejecting the SM64 run aren't universalizable without rejecting a whole bunch of valuable improvements. If you simply weren't entertained by a run, that's fine -- and probably the best reason to vote no. But I can't accept that the new SM64 is not different enough from the previous run -- it is.

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:54 AM

Quote

scrimpeh

Editor, Skilled player (1440)

Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 2109

Flygon wrote:

Part of me thinks that forcing a specific vote to be tied to a specific post might be a good idea. A post must be made to vote, and the vote must be tied to the post. It probably isn't trivial with the forum software, though...

Might not be a bad Idea, although usually many posts consist of nothing more than "Awesome, voting yes!" and do not need any more explanation. It is different with "meh" and "no" votes though, but it feels kind of odd enforcing an explanation on those, but not doing so for "yes". It'd be almost like the site doesn't want you to vote anything but yes. Perhaps such an explanation rule can be imposed on someone who has repeatedly been troll voting.

Posted: 10/14/2010 11:02 AM

Quote

rhebus

Joined: 2/19/2010
Posts: 248

scrimpeh wrote:

Perhaps such an explanation rule can be imposed on someone who has repeatedly been troll voting.

Only when a need has been demonstrated. As far as I can see there are no such persistent troll voters. Even if there were, the judges won't be swayed by troll voters who don't leave comments.

Posted: 10/14/2010 11:19 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

Dragonfangs wrote:

I do agree with Warp that when voting on a submission, you should vote for that submission and not something kind of related to it. But that is exactly what mz is doing so I don't really see why he gets all the flak :S. As far as I see, mz does not like seeing the same run over and over again, he does not think the new SM64 is different enough to justify a publication so he votes no.

Imagine that someone disliked platformers and thus consistently voted "no" on all submissions made for platformer games, not because the run is bad per se, but just as a matter of principle. The voting wouldn't be anymore related to the specific run, but it would be a kind of "single-issue voting", where a generic dislike for some phenomenon is poured onto individual submissions, with no fault of the submission itself or its author. While that would be permissible, I don't think it would be the polite thing to do. mz has the right to vote as he wishes, and express any opinion he wishes. That's a given. However, if someone's voting becomes akin to vandalism (I know I keep using that expression, and it's a rather strong word, but I think it's relevant), I think it starts going a bit too far. Even if this "vandalism" (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't affect the end result, it's still going too far. All I'm asking is that if someone is not happy about the driving principles and policies of the site, he express his opinion properly in the proper group, as matter of respect and courtesy to the community. (In fact, that would be a much better way to get one's opinion to discussion. Some random "no" votes on some random submissions isn't going to get your opinion known. Well, not usually at least.)

Posted: 10/14/2010 1:55 PM

Quote

Dragonfangs

Active player (378)

Joined: 6/5/2006
Posts: 188
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Warp wrote:

Imagine that someone disliked platformers and thus consistently voted "no" on all submissions made for platformer games, not because the run is bad per se, but just as a matter of principle. The voting wouldn't be anymore related to the specific run, but it would be a kind of "single-issue voting", where a generic dislike for some phenomenon is poured onto individual submissions, with no fault of the submission itself or its author. While that would be permissible, I don't think it would be the polite thing to do.

Politeness isn't really relevant when trying to gather a group's opinion on something. If someone dislikes platformers to the degree were they think they are detrimental to the site and don't want them published then they're free to vote no IMO. It's kind of akin to Poor Game Choice. That said, if someone feels that strongly about something like that, it's probably a better idea to find another place (new topic perhaps) to discuss it. But that doesn't mean they should refrain themselves from voting on submissions to be polite. Voting yes or not voting because the guy that made the run is a nice guy is just as wrong as voting no because he's a douche.

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?

Posted: 10/14/2010 2:04 PM

Quote

mmbossman

Experienced player (829)

Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong

Flygon wrote:

Part of me thinks that forcing a specific vote to be tied to a specific post might be a good idea. A post must be made to vote, and the vote must be tied to the post. It probably isn't trivial with the forum software, though...

This idea was tossed around the last time our voting system underwent an overhaul (remember my entertainment/tech score rating that tanked? yeah...). IIRC, it was generally disliked the last time it was discussed, although I can't quite remember why. I believe it was because of non-native English speakers having a very specific roadblock to expressing their vote.

Living Well Is The Best Revenge My Personal Page

Posted: 10/14/2010 5:33 PM

Quote

Noob_Irdoh

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 570
Location: 33°07'41"S, 160°42'04"W

I think it was good to have Tech and Entertainment split. I think it was bad to have 100 degrees of precision for each of them. Many people (especially newcomers) have no idea of the difference between a 5.9 and a 6.1 Solution hybrid system. You vote yes/no/meh on Tech and Entertainment separately. Case in point the 0-stars SM64 movie. Do you think this movie is Technically well done? --> Yes (can't deny that) Do you think this movie is Entertaining? --> I'd vote "Hell Yes" if I could, while other people can now legitimately vote "No" in this field if they want to In this way, having a "Tech = No" vote for the 0-stars SM64 movie would easily label it as bullshit. In the end, obsoletions might end up having votes like yes/meh or yes/no and still be published, while new publications would require a yes/yes...

Posted: 10/14/2010 5:39 PM

Quote

adelikat

He/Him

Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3574)

Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee

In practice though, almost everything is going to get solid Tech = yes votes. And I've noticed that the more the game is boring, the more likely people will say "Looks well done, but the game is meh". I guess it is human nature to want to have something positive to say as consolation. As far as forcing a post, the main reason this wasn't done is because it is going to cause less people to vote rather than more people to comment. If nothing else because voting is fun & easy, posting is more work. Despite how seriously the issue is being taken in this thread, submitting, voting, and commenting, are fun hobbies. And that element of fun should be the main focus of decisions ultimately.

It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects

Posted: 10/14/2010 8:45 PM

Quote

Warp

Banned User

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

Noob Irdoh wrote:

Solution: hybrid system. You vote yes/no/meh on Tech and Entertainment separately.

I don't remember now if that exact solution has been suggested in the past, but I wouldn't be surprised if had been discussed. Another idea which has been tossed in the past (and which I think deserves consideration) is having a 5-value voting system rather than a 3-value one (like the current one is). I think the specific suggestion was "no, weak no, meh, weak yes, and yes". It's quite common for people to be a bit indecisive about a submission, but leaning towards one side rather than wanting to be completely neutral or not caring either way. In this case they are in the difficult situation that they only have two choices, either 'meh' or one of the extremes. A "softer" mid-way value (weak no, weak yes) would be ideal for them.

Posted: 10/14/2010 9:00 PM

Quote

Dada

Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Flygon wrote:

Part of me thinks that forcing a specific vote to be tied to a specific post might be a good idea. A post must be made to vote, and the vote must be tied to the post.

Isn't it already so that despite there being a poll, Workbench topics aren't really votes? As in: you can vote "no" as much as you like, but if the judge considers the "yes" camp to have far better arguments it will still be accepted? We wouldn't really need a system that warrants a post per vote if all people will end up posting is "voted no as per everybody else" anyway.

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:51 PM

Quote

Ferret_Warlord

Skilled player (1417)

Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape

Yet another thread suggesting we overhaul and revamp the voting system because one or two people insist on going on witch hunts over no votes. Come on, guys, this is SO 2008.

A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:53 PM

Quote

mmbossman

Experienced player (829)

Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong

I vote "weak no" as a sign of protest to Ferret Warlord's picture, as it is not a picture of a serious ferret.

Living Well Is The Best Revenge My Personal Page

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:56 PM

Quote

Ferret_Warlord

Skilled player (1417)

Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape

Probably poor animal choice, but ferrets are categorically incapable of being serious.

A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:57 PM

Quote

DarkKobold

Skilled player (1652)

Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy

mmbossman wrote:

I vote "weak no" as a sign of protest to Ferret Warlord's picture, as it is not a picture of a serious ferret.

Apparently, you just aren't asking the right questions, such as....

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.

Posted: 10/14/2010 10:57 PM

Quote