I've noticed in several Workbench threads that several people believe they're voting on whether or not a movie should be accepted for publishing on TASvideos. As I understand it, however, any movie that meets the Vault criteria is accepted for Vault tier without needing a vote, and the votes are actually to judge whether it's fitting for Moon tier, for which entertainment is an important criterion.
So I think it would help if the poll were made clearer.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6438
Location: The land down under.
Noticing you're talking about Winx Club
I voted Yes due to the glitches... and ironically I was entertained... due to the glitches.
And some others may too have been entertained by the glitches shown... but I don't talk for others... only myself.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
No, I'm actually not. I noticed this two or three times on other threads in the past week, when people actually stated outright that they thought they were voting for acceptance rather than for moon tier.
No, I'm actually not. I noticed this two or three times on other threads in the past week, when people actually stated outright that they thought they were voting for acceptance rather than for moon tier.
There's also cases where a movie that isn't legible for the vault tier gets comments like this:
QuizmasterBos wrote:
I'd vote yes for the vault. It's too much of the same and Simon is too slow for this TAS to be a Moon in my opinion.
Despite the vault only accepting any% and 100% runs.
>.>
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
You aren't voting for moon tier, you are voting whether you are entertained or not (which the voting question clearly states). Your vote can affect placement in any non-vault tier (currently that is both moon and stars)
You aren't voting for moon tier, you are voting whether you are entertained or not (which the voting question clearly states). Your vote can affect placement in any non-vault tier (currently that is both moon and stars)
The question clearly states that it asks whether you're entertained or not. However, it does not state how this ties in to acceptance or tier placement. Therefore, some posters have their own ideas about that, which may be incorrect.
Therefore I suggest adding a single line like "A run requires extremely good votes to become Star tier and good votes to become Moon tier; a run with poor votes can only go to Vault tier" (and linking star/moon/vault to the descriptive wiki pages for those tiers). A little extra text can only be beneficial for the site :)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
You may really want to read the other thread :P
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
For any% or 100% runs, the vote is effectively about how it should be categoried: moon or vault. For any other category, however, the vote is effectively about whether to publish it or not. It is not surprising, then, that that is how people answer the poll. I.e. voting "yes" when they think the TAS is worthy of publication, even if it does not suit their particular tastes.
No matter what question one writes above the poll, it will be very hard to avoid people voting according to their understanding of the consequences of the poll. We've seen this pretty clearly through the various changes in that question through the site's history, for example in the rating behavior in the period when the poll was replaced by rating the movie.
For what it's worth, I still cannot comprehend what's so horribly wrong with adding one additional option to the voting, to indicate a problem in the submission that disqualifies it from being published. I don't understand the strong opposition to that idea. (And no, the arguments given in that thread are not very convincing, sorry.)
For what it's worth, I still cannot comprehend what's so horribly wrong with adding one additional option to the voting, to indicate a problem in the submission that disqualifies it from being published.
Technically that's fairly nasty to do, as some site code assumes what the choices are. Even altering the order to be more "logical" is hard.
E.g. This is why some submissions that had vote choices altered as a joke still had the equivalent choices in the same order.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
In any case, votes aren't the key determining factor towards how a run will be accepted, and eligibility will be decided by the staff, with votes being irrelevant for that. There's a reason why it's a discussion thread, and not just pure votes.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
They may not be the key to determining publication, but they can be a useful tool for visitors to express their views. If the options are confusing or lacking, it makes them less useful for that purpose.
