Post by Red Bull Icon on Sept 30, 2014 23:21:50 GMT -5
>SNIP<The old system had huge flaws, we all know about voting loyally instead of fairly, but this system has a long way to go before I'll see the quality of it. There are many more flaws to it (I give one guy 9.99 and the other 9.98... my vote essentially didn't count), >SNIP<
Your 9.99 versus you're 9.98 vote essentially knot counting isn't the worse of it, and this new system will due nothing two the idea of voting 'loyally' instead of 'fairly' butt present new opportunity too manipulate the counts. Particularly win taken into consideration tenths of a point. I'll give a simple, unlikely, example.
Pepsi or Coke. 5 voters. First for four Pepsi.
9-8
9-8
9-8
9-8
36 to 32 fore Pepsi averages of 9 and 8
Now fifth and only vote goes too Coke.
1-10
Totals out to 37 to 42 Coke. Averages of 7.4 end 8.4. Old system Cokes loses. New system Coke wins buy a full point off of the strength of a single voter. (I'm done purposefully fucking up my homonyms. Figure your shit out TRob) That final vote as long as the spread is >4 decides the whole thing and invalidates the other 4 voters.
Clearly a situation like that's not likely to play out, or at least I hope it'd get noticed. But a system like this is won in the margins. A 5-3 vote is better for you than a 10-9. Both low scores pull the average down, but a 2 point victory will play a bigger role in determining the winner than a perfect score against a nearly perfect score. And that's the hitch. A single 10-1 vote is easy to pick up. But get of a group of 3-4 in a close match that just nudge their votes up or down slightly and they can obliterate not just the votes they'd otherwise cancel out but the complete process. It gets worse with 1/10's of points.
By my count there should have been 17-19 voters for Sin City. 17 booked handlers plus Harley and Cypress. Let's just call it 20 for an example. 17 voters keep it close less then a point to a full point difference in each of their votes, and at the end of those 17 option A is 4 points ahead with lets call it 12 voters support. Those last three voters as long as they can cover a 4.1 point spread between them, which really only comes down to an extra 1.1 divided by 3 (.37) considering they're already voting for their winner. That's the difference between an 7.8 versus 9.2. And if everyone else is more or less around a point difference in their scoring then 12 voters chose A and 8 chose B. B wins with 40% of the voters support. The most obvious way to make sure that doesn't happen is if when voting for who you want to win you widen your own margin as far as possible. Which then knocks us back to win/lose vote.
This new system will do nothing against voting fairly versus loyally.
But that's not really why I'm against the new system. I prefer taking as Jet calls them 'cycles' into consideration. Take a character like Moss Edwards. My opinion on Moss for a long time is that he's all sizzle. His stories are nonsensical logic defying mishmash bits of half baked schemes, and I'm not even sure it's possible for him to develop a character past 'rough outline'. But good god can he pull some slick shit and make me sit back and marvel at his creativity. But he no showed half the cards this month. No way at all he should win on a PPV or title match. This new system allows that though, and in fact in Moss' case encourages it.
And then there's the idea of grading on a slide. Example KVK wrote an good KVK post, but far from his best maybe even slightly lower than normal. So I give him a 7. JK killed it for a JK post. So much better than his norm, hell he might even pull a 6, but it's JK and for him it's awesome so I'm going to give him an 8?
There's some goodness here. There is. The roulette tournament was awesome. Eden's title win was a blast. Neither of those could have happened or at least not as smoothly without the new system. And the old one certainly had it's faults. But so does this one, and in fact I think potentially more.