TLS Awards 2014: Discussion
- Thread starter Ⓐaron
- Start date
Ami
Playing All The Stuff!
- AKA
- Amizon, Commander Shepard, Ellie, Rinoa Heartilly, Xena, Clara Oswald, Gamora, Lana Kane, Tifa Lockhart, Jodie Holmes, Chloe Price.
Super Mario
IT'S A ME!
- AKA
- Jesse McCree. I feel like a New Man
Kano has dragon sickness!!! QUARANTINE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
I don't know if it's been mentioned already (because I cba to read through the whole thread) but creating a poll and then making it possible for vote for everybody has some negative effects. It no longer becomes about voting for people but about "not" voting for people. I'll take myself as an example. "Member you'd most like to meet". You can vote for everybody on that poll yet only three people have voted for me. That means all the other people don't want to meet me. Why? What's wrong with me? Or if we take one of the talent awards. if you can vote for everybody, choosing not to vote for somebody implies you think they have no talent. When you can vote for everybody, psychologically this implies everybody starts with 100% and you then take points away from them by not voting for them. It becomes not a "you deserve this award" but "you don't deserve this award.
I do see the point of allowing multiple votes for a few awards, but the majority should be limited to your top three, and some should be one choice only.
I do see the point of allowing multiple votes for a few awards, but the majority should be limited to your top three, and some should be one choice only.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Not that I don't think you have a valuable point, but would giving a lot of consideration to that not also discourage the nomination process? Especially when folks use their three-nominations-limit on names that have already come up?
Cabaret
Donator
I admit there are a few awards here I'd like to win, but I'm not gonna think about it more than a week after cos tbh, I think the comments in the award threads are more lovely than getting votes & let's be honest, it is kinda a bit of a popularity show here. Not that I see anything wrong with that; in forums people who are popular tend to be people who pay attention to others or invest in crafting their communication like an art, etc.
I think people who genuinely do amazing stuff for this site do so because they care about the site & the community here. I think that their reward goes much deeper & is more long lived than a poll. I mean best staffer is only as good as the team of staff working with them, anyone would be hard pushed to run TLS single handedly.
So all that being said, let's keep these awards in perspective eh? They are just a bit of fun & there is no underlying message to them. Lic, you know how highly regarded you are round here cos people often tell you so, I mean you have your own club woman! If I were all hyper and bustin full of confidence & egomania I'd confess I'd much rather have a fan club than an award and better yet, a fan club for something I do rather than something I just am. But I'm not about to admit that
This place is full of fuzzy feels for all of our best beloved, the awards is just traditional icing on a well layered cake.
However, I do think the multiple votes thing is a waste of time, I think one vote each bang get it done. The threads can be used for loves to others. But then I am not good at understanding how these things work best mathematically, and care too little to work it out.
I think people who genuinely do amazing stuff for this site do so because they care about the site & the community here. I think that their reward goes much deeper & is more long lived than a poll. I mean best staffer is only as good as the team of staff working with them, anyone would be hard pushed to run TLS single handedly.
So all that being said, let's keep these awards in perspective eh? They are just a bit of fun & there is no underlying message to them. Lic, you know how highly regarded you are round here cos people often tell you so, I mean you have your own club woman! If I were all hyper and bustin full of confidence & egomania I'd confess I'd much rather have a fan club than an award and better yet, a fan club for something I do rather than something I just am. But I'm not about to admit that
This place is full of fuzzy feels for all of our best beloved, the awards is just traditional icing on a well layered cake. However, I do think the multiple votes thing is a waste of time, I think one vote each bang get it done. The threads can be used for loves to others. But then I am not good at understanding how these things work best mathematically, and care too little to work it out.
Ⓐaron
Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
- AKA
- The Man, V
Just because a person doesn't vote for another person in a category doesn't necessarily mean they don't think the person they don't for doesn't deserve it at all. They may simply think others deserve it more.
The criterion of whom to vote for in a given category is likely to be pretty idiosyncratic for each member. Some people may just want to pick their top three or five people for a given award, while others may want to pick everyone they think deserves the award even slightly. Because of this, I'm not sure it would be fair to force people to choose an arbitrary number of awards.
If I truly wanted to represent everyone's opinions accurately I would use Australian balloting or range voting or something similar, but vBulletin doesn't support that by default and it would be too much work either to implement it manually or make a hack for it. I'm already putting probably tens of hours of work into this each year.
Anyway no matter how I ran this there would be people complaining about it. I went with last year's consensus of using multiple choice for items with ten or more nominees and people complained about not being able to use multiple choice for some of the categories with fewer nominees. I'm sure if I had made them all multiple choice to avert this problem people would have complained about that as well.
I'm not saying none of these complaints are valid but at some point you've got to draw the line and acknowledge that no award contest will be perfect.
The criterion of whom to vote for in a given category is likely to be pretty idiosyncratic for each member. Some people may just want to pick their top three or five people for a given award, while others may want to pick everyone they think deserves the award even slightly. Because of this, I'm not sure it would be fair to force people to choose an arbitrary number of awards.
If I truly wanted to represent everyone's opinions accurately I would use Australian balloting or range voting or something similar, but vBulletin doesn't support that by default and it would be too much work either to implement it manually or make a hack for it. I'm already putting probably tens of hours of work into this each year.
Anyway no matter how I ran this there would be people complaining about it. I went with last year's consensus of using multiple choice for items with ten or more nominees and people complained about not being able to use multiple choice for some of the categories with fewer nominees. I'm sure if I had made them all multiple choice to avert this problem people would have complained about that as well.
I'm not saying none of these complaints are valid but at some point you've got to draw the line and acknowledge that no award contest will be perfect.
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
Don't worry, I'm not upset. I used myself as an example because it didn't seem appropriate to use anyone else. I can assure you I don't have an ego problem! I just wanted to raise the point that allowing people to vote for everybody turns something that's positive into something that's negative. There is a big difference between "Here are twelve awesome people who are all quite deserving, but I can only pick my top three" and "I could vote for everybody here, but I'm going to leave him and him and her out because reasons." Do you see? It becomes a choosing of who to leave out rather than who to include. If we're going to make it possible to vote for everybody on the list, why have a vote at all? Why not stop at the nominations round and give an award to everybody who is nominated?
For the record, since realizing I could vote for everybody, I have been voting for everybody. I don't like choosing if I don't have to. Personally I think it would make sense to limit the number of choices one can vote for to three, since we have gold silver and bronze awards in each category.
For the record, since realizing I could vote for everybody, I have been voting for everybody. I don't like choosing if I don't have to. Personally I think it would make sense to limit the number of choices one can vote for to three, since we have gold silver and bronze awards in each category.
Ⓐaron
Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
- AKA
- The Man, V
If a person votes for everyone on the list, then their vote doesn't make any difference to the outcome. It's safe to assume only that if a person votes for n people, they thought those n people were the n most qualified people for that award. It does not necessarily mean that they didn't think the other people weren't qualified at all, just that they didn't think they were as qualified as the n people they voted for. Nearly all of these awards are superlatives, anyway, such as "Member You'd Most Like to Meet" and "Most Talented" and so on. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to meet the other people or don't think the other people aren't talented or whatever. It just means they made a decision that some people were more qualified than others.
Flintlock
Pro Adventurer
Everyone has made valid points. I lean towards Lic's point of view but I understand how impossible it is to please all of the people all of the time.
How about this, for next year, as a compromise: keep things as they are, but suggest that people vote for no more than three candidates. There'd be nothing stopping us from voting for more, of course, but we'd just have to trust each other. As it would only be a guideline, it wouldn't require any extra work from Aaron, and it would still give people the flexibility to vote for more if they really can't pick three. Hopefully they would give the reasoning behind their votes in that situation
How about this, for next year, as a compromise: keep things as they are, but suggest that people vote for no more than three candidates. There'd be nothing stopping us from voting for more, of course, but we'd just have to trust each other. As it would only be a guideline, it wouldn't require any extra work from Aaron, and it would still give people the flexibility to vote for more if they really can't pick three. Hopefully they would give the reasoning behind their votes in that situation
Cabaret
Donator
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Two things.
One: Aaron continues to do a fantastic job managing this, and has my thanks. He deserves an award of some sort for his dedication and attentive handling of stuffs.
Two: Aaron is right that voting for everyone in the cases where one could is essentially the same as voting for no one. I have deliberately avoided doing this, one time going as far as to vote for everyone but myself -- effectively subtracting a vote from myself.
I usually vote for far less, though, simply for the sake of moving some nominees closer to the win. For example, in the "Member You'd Most Like to Bone" poll, I voted only for three of the 16 nominees, even though I'd like to fuck all the nominated women (I really don't care if the dudes take that as a slight =P). Similarly, and perhaps as a better example, I voted for only half of the nominees in "Hottest Female" despite all being hot (and despite me, again, wanting to bone them all).
This sort of voting really doesn't have to be negative.
One: Aaron continues to do a fantastic job managing this, and has my thanks. He deserves an award of some sort for his dedication and attentive handling of stuffs.
Two: Aaron is right that voting for everyone in the cases where one could is essentially the same as voting for no one. I have deliberately avoided doing this, one time going as far as to vote for everyone but myself -- effectively subtracting a vote from myself.
I usually vote for far less, though, simply for the sake of moving some nominees closer to the win. For example, in the "Member You'd Most Like to Bone" poll, I voted only for three of the 16 nominees, even though I'd like to fuck all the nominated women (I really don't care if the dudes take that as a slight =P). Similarly, and perhaps as a better example, I voted for only half of the nominees in "Hottest Female" despite all being hot (and despite me, again, wanting to bone them all).
This sort of voting really doesn't have to be negative.
Keveh Kins
Pun Enthusiast
^^
Except, y'know, everyone really does like you Octo because you're class
Except, y'know, everyone really does like you Octo because you're class
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
Aaron, I apologize if I have come across as churlish or unappreciative. You do fantastic work to make the awards loads of fun for all. It's a complex and finicking job, and I couldn't do it, and you make it look easy, and you always remain so polite and good-natured. My comments weren't intended as a criticism of the way you do things, but more an observation of why having the option to vote for everybody doesn't work for me. If I made you feel criticized, I apologize unreservedly.
I agree that in terms of the final award, voting for everybody makes no difference to the outcome and it is the same as if I hadn't voted at all. But I don't really mind who wins. I just want everybody to be happy.