(shouting)

Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Ready to vote? Too late it's over
Locked
User avatar
Alice
Posts: 2367
Joined: 12 years ago
Pronouns: Girl person
Location: Wonderland

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Alice »

Rockythechao wrote:To be fair, American politics are all sorts of messed up and electoral fraud is sorta kinda a problem here in the states.
Definitely but I don't see how it's a valid comparison here is all.
Doctor Shemp wrote:I'm just saying I think it would take less time to count them manually than to construct a bot and then end up counting them manually anyway when something breaks or it's very close and someone forgot a space or whatever. Besides, having just counted them manually -

KobaBeach 9 (+1 incorrectly formatted vote that a bot would ignore); Doctor Shemp 5; Slit08 1; abstention 1

- it took less than a minute.
She's only going over things manually to make sure it works. So if it does then realistically next year she wouldn't be going over things. And it's probably going to be quicker with the bot anyways. If it logs the votes to a file then the only reason to load a thread is just to make sure it's not taking someone's post as a vote after their actual vote post. After that it's just checking the results the bot gives her. And it's a lot easier to check the top result there rather than going over every result for a given category and making sure there are no erroneous votes.
Bwarch
Local Candy Fiend
Posts: 136
Joined: 13 years ago
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: Scorpions and snakes aplenty oh my.

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Bwarch »

Honestly, I retract my statement about giving the task to Shemp, because fricken hell the bot will make things so much easier in the long run. Shemp's point about it being easier to count the votes manually is invalidated when you consider that we'll be using the bot every year going forward. Taking an instant rather than a person having to go over threads and do work for no good reason.

It's about making it easier for the mod team when they do so much already, Shemp, you ungrateful jerk.

We wouldn't be having any problems whatsoever if people would just READ THE STICKY THAT SAYS TO "READ ME FIRST"... Ugh. I despise how the forum has problems with just seeing simply laid out rules.
Doctor Shemp
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Doctor Shemp »

Bwarch wrote:It's about making it easier for the mod team when they do so much already, Shemp, you ungrateful jerk.

We wouldn't be having any problems whatsoever if people would just READ THE STICKY THAT SAYS TO "READ ME FIRST"... Ugh. I despise how the forum has problems with just seeing simply laid out rules.
Do you not see the contradictions in these two statements? Let's go through all of them:
1. Outsourcing the entire job of counting to someone else is bad but easing the workload for the mod team is good: somehow outsourcing the work doesn't make things easier
2. We should trust a bot that follows precise rules to count the votes of people who demonstrably cannot follow precise rules: it won't cause any problems at all, especially in a forum that has a category of "username that's the hardest to spell"
3. Manually counting informal votes to render them formal, including finding them in the first place, either takes no time at all, or less time than a manual count to begin with

Although, in fairness to you, 3 isn't a contradiction if you believe that all informal votes should be ignored completely.

I am saying that trusting it to a computer is a false economy when you need to put in the time anyway to check the results UNLESS you are proposing to not check the results at all.
User avatar
Alice
Posts: 2367
Joined: 12 years ago
Pronouns: Girl person
Location: Wonderland

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Alice »

Bwarch wrote:We wouldn't be having any problems whatsoever if people would just READ THE STICKY THAT SAYS TO "READ ME FIRST"... Ugh. I despise how the forum has problems with just seeing simply laid out rules.
Unfortunately this is an issue no matter where you go. Even I've been known to do it, though it never actually gets me in trouble (I can only think of one time it was an issue and even then it was because the sticky was poorly named so I overlooked it when looking for it) since typically those sorts of threads are just common sense. (And it's not exactly difficult to know when you should actually give it a read.)
Doctor Shemp wrote:2. We should trust a bot that follows precise rules to count the votes of people who demonstrably cannot follow precise rules: it won't cause any problems at all, especially in a forum that has a category of "username that's the hardest to spell"
That is the risk people take by not bothering with the instructions. If they cared enough to be sure their vote counts then they would make certain it was done right.

Edit:
Doctor Shemp wrote:I am saying that trusting it to a computer is a false economy when you need to put in the time anyway to check the results UNLESS you are proposing to not check the results at all.
You have repeatedly missed a very vital point about manually checking the results from the bot. It is only being done to make sure the bot works. This time. Not every other time. You're thinking only this year when the purpose is for it to be every year.
Bwarch
Local Candy Fiend
Posts: 136
Joined: 13 years ago
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: Scorpions and snakes aplenty oh my.

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Bwarch »

Doctor Shemp wrote: 1. Outsourcing the entire job of counting to someone else is bad but easing the workload for the mod team is good: somehow outsourcing the work doesn't make things easier
Because you're simply piling the work load onto somebody else and we can erase that entirely.
Doctor Shemp wrote: 2. We should trust a bot that follows precise rules to count the votes of people who demonstrably cannot follow precise rules: it won't cause any problems at all, especially in a forum that has a category of "username that's the hardest to spell"
Follow the rules or get out.
Doctor Shemp wrote: I am saying that trusting it to a computer is a false economy when you need to put in the time anyway to check the results UNLESS you are proposing to not check the results at all.
Alice has got this one.
Doctor Shemp
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Doctor Shemp »

This is entirely what I meant about Americans.
Rixithechao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BODxOghVmko
Posts: 1812
Joined: 10 years ago
First name: Mack
https://rixithechao.talkhaus.com/

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Rixithechao »

It was a mistake to jump into this discussion when there's others who can articulate this infinitely better and faster than me, haha
Alice wrote:
Rockythechao wrote:To be fair, American politics are all sorts of messed up and electoral fraud is sorta kinda a problem here in the states.
Definitely but I don't see how it's a valid comparison here is all.
It's not. I was just saying I can see the reasoning behind
Doctor Shemp wrote:What is it with Americans and trying as hard as possible to invalidate people's votes and prevent people from voting?
Doctor Shemp wrote:This is entirely what I meant about Americans.
...but that doesn't make talk like this any more constructive. (CLARIFYING EDIT: I meant broad generalizations)
Bwarch wrote:Follow the rules or get out.
That attitude isn't helping either :P
Doctor Shemp wrote:Sure. At a minute per thread, it's not a big deal. Are you seriously unable to open up a notepad file, skim through a thread and add numbers? Is that a Herculean ordeal for you?
For the ones like "Most difficult to spell", yeah, maybe they'll be easier to count manually. That doesn't mean the rest can't be automated and that there'd be no benefit to automating the process.

I mean, considering most folks have been doing a decent job of sticking to the format so far I imagine it'd be fairly simple to sort out issues; going by your tally, that +1 would be registered as a unique candidate, so Rena just adds that to

KobaBeach

's main count and removes the other one. Simple. Maybe less so the longer the voting period drags on (how long do these things last anyway? Until the 31st?) but still probably a lot easier, faster and less error-prone than manual counting.
Last edited by Rixithechao 9 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
Delightful Adventure Enhanced is out now!

Image

There's an official ASMT Discord server! Check it out to discuss Demo games and follow their development! thread, invite link

(Entry requires verification, either with a connected Youtube/Twitter/Twitch/etc account or manually by the server staff.)


Itch.io (albums and eventually games), Youtube (dofur pass and I guess other videos)
User avatar
Leet
Well, hello, Smith ( ´-`)ノ
Posts: 3025
Joined: 11 years ago
First name: Chie Arale
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Harman's Room
https://leet.talkhaus.com/

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Leet »

-

E: Rocky already beat me to posting basically what I typed below.

I was assuming that Rena or whoever will read the bot's results and catch any stragglers that voted for something out of the format. I.e. therefore they don't have to count 14 votes for let's say raocow, and the three people who said "i vote raocow" will also be plainly visible. So there wouldn't really be any problems? That's how I would do it anyway.
Well it is a decent hack but sometime its just too repetitif there no level that actually pop in your face and your like oh yeah that level they all ressemble themselves and just monster along the way.
Blood Ghoul wrote:Sometimes it seems my blood spurts out in gobs, as if it were a fountain's pulsing sobs. I clearly hear it mutter as it goes yet cannot find the wound from which it flows. Before I met you, baby, I didn't know what I was missing.
devil†zukin

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by devil†zukin »

dunno.. i figured it was 2014 newcomers but if it's the will of the people..
User avatar
Alice
Posts: 2367
Joined: 12 years ago
Pronouns: Girl person
Location: Wonderland

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Alice »

Doctor Shemp wrote:This is entirely what I meant about Americans.
This is a great argument. You're generalizing an entire populace because a fair amount of people are disagreeing with you. You seem to jsut be using this as a reason to invalidate all arguments against your view.
Doctor Shemp wrote:Sure. At a minute per thread, it's not a big deal. Are you seriously unable to open up a notepad file, skim through a thread and add numbers? Is that a Herculean ordeal for you?
Can I point out something here by the way? There's currently 41 topics. (Which may expand later, I don't know if Rena has added all she intends to yet.) Even if it only took a single minute per topic (which seems unlikely seeing as a little under half of all mosts threads are multiple pages already) that's 40 minutes of just collecting the votes. Which would take the bot what, like a minute tops?
User avatar
YelseyKing
Anyone want a banana? :3
Posts: 1402
Joined: 10 years ago
First name: Matt
Location: Oregon

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by YelseyKing »

Hmm. I expected to get some newcomer votes, too, but I guess because I literally joined a day before 2014, and I have a high post count, people assume I was around longer than I was? Oh well. No big, really.
Image
Ayjo and Meya are watching you. Be on your best behavior.

Moists:
Image

The (Talkhaus) Price is Right
On hiatus. It'll return someday.
Bwarch
Local Candy Fiend
Posts: 136
Joined: 13 years ago
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: Scorpions and snakes aplenty oh my.

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Bwarch »

Rockythechao wrote: That attitude isn't helping either :P
Oy, we'll more or less need Rena's clarification at this point, but I was simply saying that if somebody doesn't want to follow the rules and write in proper format, their votes wouldn't be counted. But, it all depends on if Rena is going to want to catch stragglers or not.

I think it would invalidate the point of the bot, but I suppose it would depend on how exactly it's done.
Alice wrote: Can I point out something here by the way? There's currently 41 topics. (Which may expand later, I don't know if Rena has added all she intends to yet.) Even if it only took a single minute per topic (which seems unlikely seeing as a little under half of all mosts threads are multiple pages already) that's 40 minutes of just collecting the votes. Which would take the bot what, like a minute tops?
Rena says we're about halfway done. So, more.
User avatar
Alice
Posts: 2367
Joined: 12 years ago
Pronouns: Girl person
Location: Wonderland

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Alice »

Bwarch wrote:Oy, we'll more or less need Rena's clarification at this point, but I was simply saying that if somebody doesn't want to follow the rules and write in proper format, their votes wouldn't be counted. But, it all depends on if Rena is going to want to catch stragglers or not.
I believe she said she might do it this time since she's double checking things this time to make sure her bot worked.
Rena says we're about halfway done. So, more.
So more like an hour and a half then. And this isn't counting anything after the tallying either.
User avatar
Alice
Posts: 2367
Joined: 12 years ago
Pronouns: Girl person
Location: Wonderland

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by Alice »

YelseyKing wrote:Hmm. I expected to get some newcomer votes, too, but I guess because I literally joined a day before 2014, and I have a high post count, people assume I was around longer than I was? Oh well. No big, really.
Should've followed my advice from the Twitter thread even though it's nearly a year late.
Rixithechao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BODxOghVmko
Posts: 1812
Joined: 10 years ago
First name: Mack
https://rixithechao.talkhaus.com/

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Rixithechao »

Alice wrote:Regarding the number of threads
From the sticky:
RenaBeach wrote:We had 355 categories, with 5675 votes from just active users!

Firstly, due to the number of categories, I've decided to space them out over a number of days to give people a chance to keep up. The first batch should be up now.
So yeah.
Bwarch wrote:
Rockythechao wrote: That attitude isn't helping either :P
Oy, we'll more or less need Rena's clarification at this point, but I was simply saying that if somebody doesn't want to follow the rules and write in proper format, their votes wouldn't be counted. But, it all depends on if Rena is going to want to catch stragglers or not.

I think it would invalidate the point of the bot, but I suppose it would depend on how exactly it's done.
And I mean, "don't doodle a doodle on the ballot if you want your vote to be taken seriously" isn't an entirely unreasonable argument, but the way you phrased it there made it sound kinda... needlessly aggressive/dogmatic?

EDIT: Okay wow I didn't mean to paraphrase you there, Dr. Shemp :lol:
Last edited by Rixithechao 9 years ago, edited 3 times in total.
Delightful Adventure Enhanced is out now!

Image

There's an official ASMT Discord server! Check it out to discuss Demo games and follow their development! thread, invite link

(Entry requires verification, either with a connected Youtube/Twitter/Twitch/etc account or manually by the server staff.)


Itch.io (albums and eventually games), Youtube (dofur pass and I guess other videos)
User avatar
YelseyKing
Anyone want a banana? :3
Posts: 1402
Joined: 10 years ago
First name: Matt
Location: Oregon

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by YelseyKing »

Alice wrote:
YelseyKing wrote:Hmm. I expected to get some newcomer votes, too, but I guess because I literally joined a day before 2014, and I have a high post count, people assume I was around longer than I was? Oh well. No big, really.
Should've followed my advice from the Twitter thread even though it's nearly a year late.
Hah. My registering at *exactly* midnight was a complete fluke. :P
Image
Ayjo and Meya are watching you. Be on your best behavior.

Moists:
Image

The (Talkhaus) Price is Right
On hiatus. It'll return someday.
devil†zukin

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by devil†zukin »

move the off-topic discussions here please
Doctor Shemp
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Most Likely to Make References You Won't Get

Post by Doctor Shemp »

Rockythechao wrote:
Doctor Shemp wrote:This is entirely what I meant about Americans.
...but that doesn't make talk like this any more constructive.
I mean the idea that you would not only construct a system with the knowledge that it would disqualify votes but moreover be proud of the fact that it would disqualify votes - as Bwarch is - is an attitude that, in my study of systems, I have not seen in any other developed country. I'm talking about a country that does its voting by machines and, when confronted with the fact that the machines don't work properly, reacts with apathy. A country that, when confronted by a supreme court disqualifying votes because something on them is slightly off and the judges' bench is stacked by political appointments, reacts with apathy. A country that requires onerous methods of self-identification to vote and then restricts what is and isn't ID to deliberately skew demographics. A country where the governing party determines the electoral boundaries and no-one cares that this is an institutional license to gerrymander. A country, in short, that seems not to care about democracy.

If you start from the position of "which votes should be disqualified" you end up in a position of "which votes shouldn't be disqualified". Why not institute a post count minimum to make sure only important talkhausers vote? Why not just have the inner circle vote? Or just mods? etc.

If you're going to do it, do it properly, and if you think it takes too long, then whaddya know, you have way too many categories.

If you want to bot it, then the best way to construct it would be an automated poll in which each user either selects an option that's already there or writes in a new one. That way, there's no typos - unless it's the first vote for something - but in that case it's obvious what it's meant to be, and there'll be no split votes from typos. For example, there's no need to count votes for "Doctor Shemp" and "Dr Shemp" and "Dr. Shemp" and "Shemp" and add them together if everyone after the first voter already sees the option "Doctor Shemp" and clicks on that. This imposition of a new method on an old system seems like a guarantee to cock up and have to count it manually anyway.
User avatar
Leet
Well, hello, Smith ( ´-`)ノ
Posts: 3025
Joined: 11 years ago
First name: Chie Arale
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Harman's Room
https://leet.talkhaus.com/

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by Leet »

yeah thats exactly comparable to "please read this very simple and singular instruction on how to vote using our internet bot on an internet video game forum"
Well it is a decent hack but sometime its just too repetitif there no level that actually pop in your face and your like oh yeah that level they all ressemble themselves and just monster along the way.
Blood Ghoul wrote:Sometimes it seems my blood spurts out in gobs, as if it were a fountain's pulsing sobs. I clearly hear it mutter as it goes yet cannot find the wound from which it flows. Before I met you, baby, I didn't know what I was missing.
devil†zukin

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by devil†zukin »

apart from the false equivalence and bizarre & inappropriate analogy, you're conflating automation with an unattended process

in short - you don't know enough to make the claims you're making and it sounds like you're just trying to cause a fuss

if you don't want to make the votes easier to count (automation or not) - put them somewhere else in your post and risk the chance that they will not be counted
User avatar
Alice
Posts: 2367
Joined: 12 years ago
Pronouns: Girl person
Location: Wonderland

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by Alice »

RenaBeach wrote:move the off-topic discussions here please
I thought discussion was allowed in the threads? Or did it get a bit too off-topic from the thread topic? (Though it does fit here better regardless, just curious.)
Doctor Shemp wrote:If you're going to do it, do it properly, and if you think it takes too long, then whaddya know, you have way too many categories.

If you want to bot it, then the best way to construct it would be an automated poll in which each user either selects an option that's already there or writes in a new one. That way, there's no typos - unless it's the first vote for something - but in that case it's obvious what it's meant to be, and there'll be no split votes from typos. For example, there's no need to count votes for "Doctor Shemp" and "Dr Shemp" and "Dr. Shemp" and "Shemp" and add them together if everyone after the first voter already sees the option "Doctor Shemp" and clicks on that. This imposition of a new method on an old system seems like a guarantee to cock up and have to count it manually anyway.
The automated poll method would have an issue. It would either be far too limited or it would take a lot more work from Rena to make work well.

And I don't think 40-80 categories is really all that much. It's a matter of how much time Rena has to deal with tallying votes. And if using a bot makes it quicker then there is no reason to not use it. There are clear instructions in the sticky labelled "Read me first - important information about this years mosts" about how to deal with your votes properly. If you don't follow those directions then your vote doesn't count.

I don't see why you're struggling with this idea very much. Though you seem dead set on never changing your view anyways judging by the way you've been arguing where you ignore the most valid posts the opposing side makes and if you can't come up with an argument you fall back to "but Americans" as if that completely invalidates their viewpoint somehow.
devil†zukin

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by devil†zukin »

discussion is allowed, but on-topic discussion
there's no bot - mostsbot 3000 is ME
Doctor Shemp
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by Doctor Shemp »

I don't think the system is without its positives. Speeding up the process is an admirable objective if it works. I'm saying that it's inviting trouble to try and impose it on a voting system that was originally designed for manual counting and on many categories where there are multiple ways to phrase the same thing, like worst post. Now since Rena would be overlooking the process - a fact I will acknowledge I overlooked - that fixes most of the problems, including probably the above one, but not definitely, and for those checking the votes seems to me to be just as much work as a manual count.

I just take umbrage to two things:
1. That Candidate A won when Candidate B had more votes, just some of them written incorrectly (as did happen last year and could easily happen again in categories coming down to the wire) is not only fine but admirable (Bwarch's position). Now I would agree with that if the vote is completely incomprehensible, but if the intention is clear, I firmly believe as a matter of principle that it should count, and that something like "MrDeePayDoctor Shemp" or "Um... [line break] MrDeePay because [blah blah blah]" wouldn't count as votes is ridiculous.
2. Bwarch's continued attitude that he is a mod and any questioning of a mod's will is heretical.
User avatar
Leet
Well, hello, Smith ( ´-`)ノ
Posts: 3025
Joined: 11 years ago
First name: Chie Arale
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Harman's Room
https://leet.talkhaus.com/

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by Leet »

its ridiculous to excuse people's ignorance if the information they need to know is very clearly marked as important, put before them, and easily available

why not excuse any rulebreaks from people who dont read the talkhaus rules, and just never ban them?
Well it is a decent hack but sometime its just too repetitif there no level that actually pop in your face and your like oh yeah that level they all ressemble themselves and just monster along the way.
Blood Ghoul wrote:Sometimes it seems my blood spurts out in gobs, as if it were a fountain's pulsing sobs. I clearly hear it mutter as it goes yet cannot find the wound from which it flows. Before I met you, baby, I didn't know what I was missing.
Bwarch
Local Candy Fiend
Posts: 136
Joined: 13 years ago
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Location: Scorpions and snakes aplenty oh my.

Re: Talkhaus Mosts 2014 discussion thread !!!!!

Post by Bwarch »

Doctor Shemp wrote: 2. Bwarch's continued attitude that he is a mod and any questioning of a mod's will is heretical.
You wot
Locked