Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
It doesn't make sense, everyone knows Banjo Kazooie sucks.
Honestly, if things go this way, everyone will do like those guys who simply get the modified emulators here and do their runs then upload to youtube.
Since as you think votes aren't important and all the lazy bastards want VIDEOS instead of emulator movie files.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
BoltR, I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say.
BoltR wrote:
hopper wrote:
While it seems justifiable to ask judges to read through an entire thread, most Mario/Zelda/Metroid runs draw 10 or more pages of comments, and a lot of bitter debate. I can't stand reading page after page of people sniping at each other, even if I had the time to read through that many responses.
Having to sift through garbage is part of the job description of being a judge.
What I meant was, while it seems justifiable to ask judges to read through 10 pages, it's not reasonable to expect everyone else to do so. I can't stand reading page after page of people sniping at each other, even if I had the time to read through that many responses.
BoltR wrote:
hopper wrote:
The concern I have about not having polls, or hiding poll results from non-judges, is this. If a run is obviously exceptional, the first page may be all that you have to read to get a sense for how the run is regarded.
This is exactly why you aren't suppose to use the votes to decide if you are going to publish it or not.
Again, I'm not talking about the judges. Of course the judges aren't supposed to use the votes to decide if they're going to publish it or not. The regular visitors do use the votes to decide which videos they're going to watch. I'm not a judge, so I'm not obliged to read 10 pages of discussion. I just want to watch the video and then post my opinions, with or without reading the opinions of others first. The poll results help me to do that. Without that resource, I'm less inclined to participate, and others may be discouraged from participating as well.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
That's what the publication process/the front page is for. Quality control for the people who only want to watch the good videos.
That's not what I want, though. I want to watch the unpublished videos for a number of reasons. I want to watch some of the videos that have mostly No votes so that I can provide constructive criticism and encourage the author to try again. I also like to watch videos that have a lot of Yes votes to see if I can catch something that others have missed. Also, if there's no consensus, sometimes I like to watch a video to see if I can offer an insight that might lead to a resolution. That may seem like it covers every possible scenario, but I don't want to just watch every single submission, and I certainly don't have time to do so. No, I use the votes to decide how I want to spend my time. I choose to watch this video or that video based on criteria such as how much time I have, what game it is, and how the voting is going. I'm just saying that the polls help me decide what I want to watch. Maybe they don't help you, but they help me. And if they help me, they may help others.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
Indeed, the submission system is a little wonky due to how uptight people are about it. The odd thing is it's usually not the authors who get offended by the no vote, but the viewers. How many times have you seen people who weren't the author state, "Alright, who voted no on this amazing submission?" Yeah, people may want an explanation for it, but people will still flip out about it. Again, the Zelda submission: When people started expressing discontent with the movie, they ended up being bombarded with, "You just don't get it, do you?" Kinda like Dennis Dyack's reaction to Too Human's negative reviews (except in that case it WAS the author who was offended).
That being said, I cast my vote for the proposed voting system. At least people won't get uppity until AFTER the no vote is explained.
I agree that people are too rough on people who vote no. The question asks if YOU were entertained and that changes from person to person. Personally, there are movies I would have voted no that I simply didn't vote to because :
a) 100 yes votes vs 1 no vote means the no vote is pretty much ignored, even if explained.
b) if you try to explain it, people attack your opinion (sometimes)
Other movies, like the most recent OoT movie, I voted yes but I felt it was more of a "meh". I explained it, and even with the yes vote I got some comments about me not liking it...
Personally, the best system would be the ability to leave comments that ONLY the author and judges could see, IE by a PM system. No one would be attacked for their vote this way, even if the majority didn't agree with them. Judges could see everyone's opinions, and the author would know what to improve in the future.
you could always change the system entirely so it is not on the forums at all, but on a seperate section of the website. It might provide extra customisation, and it will allow you to make a system similar to wikipedia easier to implement (in my opinion).
If you did do it that way, you could seperate out the yes votes from the no votes, and this way you allow the judges and the runners themselves to pick up on any critisim a lot easier. This might also reduce the forum posts in general, as you could resolve a lot of discussion via pm in this way.
Just a suggestion though, dunno if it would be easier or not.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I voted for Restore the poll as it was
However, I also like the idea of rating submissions instead. But only if the rating system (and possibly criteria) were separate from post publication rating. Basically, it would be a more accurate method of voting, instead of yes, no. People have already started adopting this idea themselves anyway with things like "weak yes, weak no".
It makes sense to have a poll for submissions for the judge's sake. The biggest problem is that people demand who voted no on a popular movie when they don't explain themselves, which steers the discussion away from the submission itself. So hiding the results makes perfect sense.
However, withholding the votes after publication (or even after becoming gruefood) is not necessary. Revealing the numbers would just show some interesting statistics (at least, interesting to me). But if there are people that want to complain that someone voted no even though the movie was published, then they are just trolling. If it was published, who cares who voted no? Such posts on a published movie should be deleted if it ever happens. Revealing votes after rejection would also show a statistic on why it was rejected. It could also reveal a false judge (if anything like that ever happens, which hopefully will not).
Furthermore, hiding the poll results would make the votes more accurate, as people may vote against the crowd without fear of being flamed (at least against what appears to be the crowd's decision).
However, this does not mean people should vote without voicing their unique opinion. As long as the poll remains the secondary source of input to the judges for whether to accept a movie or not, keeping the polls should be fine.
Oh, and I also support leaving newbies out of the poll. We don't need random people jumping in and ruining the system.
<ccfreak2k> There is no 'ctrl' button on DeHackEd's computer. DeHackEd is always in control.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Let's say someone votes no on a popular submission. Then it is published and the votes are displayed. At that point, wouldn't someone then demand to know who voted no?
(Just throwing that out there. Not trying to sway to one side or another)
Also, if voting results are removed from the public, the total number of votes should at least be displayed. People use the voting stats as a means of selecting which submissions to watch.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
adelikat wrote:
Let's say someone votes no on a popular submission. Then it is published and the votes are displayed. At that point, wouldn't someone then demand to know who voted no?
I would do exactly what I've done in the past few threads where this has already come up: Tell them to stop whining, because their run got published, which was the end goal anyway.
adelikat wrote:
Also, if voting results are removed from the public, the total number of votes should at least be displayed. People use the voting stats as a means of selecting which submissions to watch.
Voted for "No poll, but enable rating for submissions like it is for publications". There are ways to make it neat and orderly, and it will make sense, too. If it will use the "entertainment/technical" system like our publication rating, it will also be good if the entertainment rating is locked upon voting, but tech is possible to modify (in case a person would like to change their opinion as a result of a discussion in the submission thread). It will be something new and useful.
Second favorite option was "No poll. But add "post <vote_type> post" buttons to where the poll was". It's potentially less useful than the above, especially for judges, but it can formulate a different approach to discussing submissions, hopefully moving from monosyllabic posts to rationalistic discussion and more constructive feedback.
adelikat wrote:
At that point, wouldn't someone then demand to know who voted no?
It's not "who" that is of utmost interest, but "why". Note that such problem is near-impossible to solve if voting is kept anonymous.
Another thing you can do is return a poll but make it possible to every user to view each other's vote. Can someone add it to the option list? I'm not choosing this option, but I guess it should be there, too.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
How about a rating system where individual ratings are hidden until publication. At that point, only those who choose would have their ratings public (as it is now).
This would:
1) address the issue in option D (which is winning the poll currently)
2) give more accurate information to judges
3) give more control to the audience and less to the judges which I am in favor of if it comes with 2)
I change my vote to this.
One less for "the way it was" and one more for the ratings option.
Voted for "No poll, but enable rating for submissions like it is for publications". There are ways to make it neat and orderly, and it will make sense, too. If it will use the "entertainment/technical" system like our publication rating, it will also be good if the entertainment rating is locked upon voting, but tech is possible to modify (in case a person would like to change their opinion as a result of a discussion in the submission thread).
I really like this idea, but I would like entertainment to be possible to modify too (for example, it'd be useful for those people who didn't see the bears humping on the Altered Beast TAS the first time they watched it).
You're just fucking stupid, everyone hates you, sorry to tell you the truth. no one likes you, you're someone pretentious and TASes only to be on speed game, but don't have any hope, you won't get there.
On second thought, I think the no poll, but enable ratings would work too. The only flaw with this system is that if everyone can see the average rating before publication, the results may be skewed by people assuming the run is good or bad. Therefore, if that system is to be used, only the judges and the user that submitted a run should be able to see the average ratings. Everyone else should only be able to see how many people rated the publication.
There would also be no debate over who voted low, because only Bisqwit could see the individual ratings. Yes, this would open the door to someone protesting against a certain player by rating 0 on everything they submit, but doing so would not sway the opinion of the community since the average is invisible to them (and most likely the other votes would outweigh a single zero anyway).
I think either method I mentioned would work (with one change to the previous one: submitters can see the results). But this blind rating system would probably work better than a mere poll. Too bad I can't change my vote on the situation, but I'm just going to sit on that for now and see what happens next.
<ccfreak2k> There is no 'ctrl' button on DeHackEd's computer. DeHackEd is always in control.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
adelikat wrote:
How about a rating system where individual ratings are hidden until publication. At that point, only those who choose would have their ratings public (as it is now).
This would:
1) address the issue in option D (which is winning the poll currently)
2) give more accurate information to judges
3) give more control to the audience and less to the judges which I am in favor of if it comes with 2)
I change my vote to this.
One less for "the way it was" and one more for the ratings option.
I also like this better than any of the options currently suggested. It would prevent off-topic discussion stemming from "no" voting, would result in greater information being made available to those making the decisions, and would help contribute to the ratings of the movie post-publication.
I change my vote to this idea (as long as ratings are not locked upon input).
I voted "Other option? Suggest an option, and it will be added. (Votes will be reset, and you can vote again in this poll.)"
I still think an option of writing only to the author & judges would work.
My second choice would be reverting to what we had.
I voted "Other option? Suggest an option, and it will be added. (Votes will be reset, and you can vote again in this poll.)"
I still think an option of writing only to the author & judges would work.
You mean private-messaging of sorts?
Uhh. I don't think that's an option we'll consider seriously...
EDIT: Added "ratings with individual ratings kept secret until judging" as an option. Poll results were reset. Until the reset, "reset" had 3, "reset but judge-only" had 10, "post buttons" had 3, the next three had 1 each, and "ratings" had 3.
There's one problem with this poll: You can only choose one option, even if there was more than one option you consider equally acceptable.
Maybe add a few combined options (like "either private poll or private rating system is ok by me" or the like)?
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
You could just post which two options you find equally acceptable, and then vote for one or the other. This whole process was supposed to help people rely less on polls, and more on posting their thoughts anyway.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Voted "No poll. But add "post <vote_type> post" buttons to where the poll was." However, I think there is an alternative to consider.
I am all for discourse and dialog over submissions. However, it seems like so many votes are going unsupported, while a load of other votes are simple 'this was good, voting yes.' It sometimes feels like I'm the only person striving to get some sort of discussion out there in some of the threads. It should be mandatory to include rationale behind all votes, even Meh votes. It should be mandatory that all submissions reach a minimum number of votes/posts/pages, so that it is assured that people are at least attempting to make the publication justified. It should also be mandatory that there is at least some sort of opposition stance being taken by someone at some point in the Workbench thread so that we know that there is some sort of qualification going on before publication. If a judge feels that there are votes that have incredibly terrible reasoning (ie "I remember playing this game as a kid and this brought back memories. I also remember it being pretty boring, but the fact that you beat it is impressive to me"), those votes can be nullified/reduced/removed. We need to support the idea of a community working together to make sure that publications are on par with the rest of the site.
That being said, force voting to require rationale behind it. Force submissions to have minimum requirements before being published. Allow judges to actively punish people who are ruining the idea behind the Workbench (that is, some sort of constructive feedback, be it positive or negative).
Furthermore, I'm still pretty mad that there are people out there whose ratings are not anywhere near 5 on average. 5 is noted as "Average" in the ratings scale, and yet there are lots of people who are giving 8s and up on some runs. I know it would require a lot of work, but could it be possible to make some ratings count for more impact based on their relative scale being closer to "5 is Average?" It would require people to be more subjective in a relative stance, while otherwise punishing people who rate 10/10 on their own submissions/across the whole site.
Voted "Restore poll, with only-judges results access, but publicize it when the movie is judged".
Like that idea the most.
Could you, and the others who are in favor of this give a good argument for it?
Before I continue, I'll state why I'm against it: I'm interested to see if the general audience wants to see the movie published (which is what question they are answering most of the time).
I've asked around a bit, and got two main reasons for making the votes only visible for judges:
1) People are influenced in their voting by seeing the other votes.
- I think people are mature enough not to be influenced by it.
- People could still be influenced by seeing the forum posts.
- This seems more like an argument for making the votes visible after voting, and not after publication.
2) If there are lots of yes voters, the no-voter will get framed.
- I thought voting was anonymous... (maybe the worst argument, since posting reasons is wanted)
- If you vote no, you either have good reasons, and are willing to state them, or don't, and then I can see why people wonder why there is a no vote.
- If you post your reasons for voting no, which is what is wanted, the entire flame arguments falls over.
Other reasons why I dislike the option:
- Seeing the voting results might cause some discussion, but I don't think this is bad at all, a little discussion doesn't hurt. It's the main reason why we can post, and I even think it should be encouraged.
- I'm interested to see if the general audience wants to see the movie published (which is what question they are answering most of the time) while the discussion about whether or not it should be accepted is still going on. I am not the slightest bit interested in this after the movie is published or accepted... then my attention turns to the ratings.
===============================================
I think the old system was fine, but the suggestion of using ratings and showing the average rating, and number of votes seems very nice also. It encourages people to rate, and more ratings will be good for the statistics. I think I'm currently in favor of that option. (It might even solve some of the problems people who are voting the "only visible to judges"-option have, since your rating will only count towards an average, and will not be a visible "no" (even thought that would still be anonymous).
I still want to see the return of the old system. The "use ratings instead, unhidden per user preference" is good too.
What's the point of hiding the votes? As it is you can't tell who voted what, and anybody who votes "No" should be posting. There's nothing to gain from it except removing a quick and easy way to get a general assessment of opinions about the movie.
I think this whole idea is stupid, and this is coming from somebody who is quite often being yelled at for voting no for some reason or another.
I like the idea of a hidden vote 'till publishing. I think authors and such would still appreciate seeing # of votes cast.
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.
