Just a question to the NO-ers you mean NO for entertainment but still suitable for the vault? Or just NO overall?
This is just a curious killed the cat question.
(since it does say "Did you find this movie entertaining?")
I think you raise an interesting question. As it is now, there's no way for people to vote between "ok for publication in vault" and "not ok for publication". Naturally they can express their reasoning in the comments (as they should), but what exactly should they vote?
If one's honest, one can find a run entertaining even if it's blatantly against publication rules. Should one vote "yes" and then comment that they think it should not be published? That feels a bit contradictory, even if it's technically speaking accurate.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Yeah, there has been similar criticism on the "new" poll question before.
I've read alternative suggestions like changing the poll to "Publish to Moons/Vault/No?" or something similar, but to me that seems like it could be confusing to newer users (which also a reason I don't really like the "Moon" tier).
I'd like to hear if people have better suggestions, though.
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.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6449
Location: The land down under.
Mothrayas wrote:
Yeah, there has been similar criticism on the "new" poll question before.
I've read alternative suggestions like changing the poll to "Publish to Moons/Vault/No?" or something similar, but to me that seems like it could be confusing to newer users (which also a reason I don't really like the "Moon" tier).
I'd like to hear if people have better suggestions, though.
I say:
NO
YES
MEH (Vault)
and yes Vault bracketed like that, to say you are still accepting it or just:
NO
YES
VAULT
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
* Entertaining.
* Not very entertaining, but ok for publication.
* Not ok for publication (explain in the comments why.)
The wording could use some work, but as an idea...
Joined: 8/16/2013
Posts: 20
Location: Vire, France
I think the poll should be more like
"Do you think this movie is good enouth to be published ?"
- No
- Yes and entertaining
- Yes but not entertaining
(The last answer is if you want the movie to be in vault)
It could be cool for answers like this
AngerFist wrote:
Voted no. Sorry but I did not find this remotely entertaining.
It says that he find the movie not entertaining, but it doesn't say if it's a good enouth TAS to be published. Also all people don't see entertainment the same way, but most are able to see if a TAS is badly or nicely made.
Redoing my Sim City TAS (New faster way to build Zones)
As far as judging goes, I expect the poll should be applied something like this:
•Solid Yes votes? Publish immediately after clearing basic formalities. (Does it beat all records? Are all authors properly credited? Etc.)
•Solid No votes? Reject immediately.
•Anything in the gray area? Read the comments, seek further input from the author(s), judge based on that.
What I'm saying is that the votes don't (or shouldn't) matter. If people vote No because a movie was boring while still technically impressive, judges should recognize that and at least publish to the Vault.
This is something I like about TASVideos: it isn't a democracy.
If anything, votes are more useful to viewers, allowing them to get a quick sense of the quality of a movie. (I've skipped a lot of movies because they were soundly rejected and even watched some movies I normally wouldn't have because feedback was so positive.)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Whether it deserves publication or not is not the question, because it is not determined by the audience from some point. Earlier audience could dislike a well-optimized movie so much it was rejected. Now it does not happen. Votes determine the tier. Posts determine the level of optimization, and affect acceptance directly.
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.
What I'm saying is that the votes don't (or shouldn't) matter.
So what should I vote if I find the run entertaining but I have an objection to it being published (eg. it blatantly breaks some of the rules)? Should I simply abstain from voting?
IMO if there's a poll system, it should cover all the possibilities, not leave the third option out completely.
Besides, if there were a "this should not be published" voting option, then it would more quickly inform a judge that "hey, someone thinks there's a problem with this submission" at a glance. (More information should be given in the comments, of course, but this notifies the judge that someone does have an objection.) There's nothing wrong about that.
As I see it, the two biggest issues with the poll as it stands is stands are:
People are still using it like the old poll, so it's useless for anything but the very first submission of a game. If it's an improvement, or even just said to be an improvement like in the Pokemon resyncs, then most people vote Yes sight unseen.
And two, it groups together two very different opinions (Vault and Reject) under the same vote.
If you don't like the "Moons" tier for being impenetrable to newcomers but are okay with "Vault", then returning to the question of "Should this be published?" But changing the responses to "Yes/Vault/No" would address both issues. I never really saw the point of the Meh equivocating response anyway.
The poll itself is good as it is.
The only problem is that people tend to vote Yes (or at least Meh) even for mildly entertaining runs, simply because they consider the run technically well-made, or they don't want to look like an asshole voting No, or they actually want to support the author/the game franchise/etc, even though they watched the movie using fast-forward and skipping huge parts because of boring content.
On the contrary, people who actually dislike the run usually abstain from voting (e.g. if you drop watching an encode, you may as well close the tab and forget about the submission. Or you may obey the rule "must watch [supposedly to the end] before voting").
To compensate for this, judges should weigh in the number of votes. Right now it seems that any submission with "0 No votes and the number of Yes votes higher than the number of Meh votes" gets into Moons, even though there were only a few votes overall.
Warp wrote:
So what should I vote if I find the run entertaining but I have an objection to it being published (eg. it blatantly breaks some of the rules)? Should I simply abstain from voting?
No, if you find the run entertaining, you should vote Yes no matter what.
You're not a judge, the site rules shouldn't bother you at the moment of answering the question. Even if the submission is likely to be rejected because of breaking the rules, you shouldn't vote No and throw posts like "In before reject!"
Warp wrote:
Besides, if there were a "this should not be published" voting option, then it would more quickly inform a judge that "hey, someone thinks there's a problem with this submission" at a glance. (More information should be given in the comments, of course, but this notifies the judge that someone does have an objection.) There's nothing wrong about that.
Yeah, let's flood the poll with notification buttons and options that are only needed once a year.
Movie watchers aren't supposed to decide "this should not be published". If you personally don't want the movie to be published, you can write a comment about this, but you may still vote Yes or No depending on the movie content. These entertainment-based votes may lead the rejected movie to the Gruefood Delight. Or they may even change the rule in question, you never know.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Warp wrote:
So what should I vote if I find the run entertaining but I have an objection to it being published (eg. it blatantly breaks some of the rules)?
You should vote yes. We are asking for your opinions on entertainment value, not if it breaks the rules. To be blunt, no one is asking you if it breaks the rules, that's what the judges are for.
However, if you have a reason it breaks the rules, or some other objection, the judge would prefer you mention it. Judges are supposed to read all comments. In theory, commenting is sufficient to bring it to their attention, and it will be weighted accordingly.
So what should I vote if I find the run entertaining but I have an objection to it being published (eg. it blatantly breaks some of the rules)?
You should vote yes. We are asking for your opinions on entertainment value, not if it breaks the rules. To be blunt, no one is asking you if it breaks the rules, that's what the judges are for.
However, if you have a reason it breaks the rules, or some other objection, the judge would prefer you mention it. Judges are supposed to read all comments. In theory, commenting is sufficient to bring it to their attention, and it will be weighted accordingly.
But entertainment is given as a potential excuse for other factors normally against publication so that things with high (perceived) audience support will be accepted anyway. If someone doesn't think it's worthy of being published, like due to gross/obvious lack of optimization, poor/unneeded/redundant goal choice, or poor game choice, then why would they want to act in a way more likely to have those things excused?
That also doesn't address the inaccurate voting on improved movies where people simply vote Yes just because it's an improvement, ending up with the situation where the judge really has no actually decision to make AND the votes are extremely inaccurate. Many Atari runs immediately come to mind.
You should vote yes. We are asking for your opinions on entertainment value, not if it breaks the rules. To be blunt, no one is asking you if it breaks the rules, that's what the judges are for.
It doesn't really matter what the actual question presented in the poll is. Voting "yes" still feels strongly like voting pro publication. If there's a problem with the run, voting "yes" feels like saying "there's a problem with the run preventing publication, but I still think it can be published (after all, I am voting 'yes'...)", which feels contradictory.
Currently the only available option is to abstain from voting. I don't really see a good reason why there could not be a voting option to indicate an objection to publication, and I don't really understand the seemingly strong opposition to the idea. What exactly is the problem?
However, if you have a reason it breaks the rules, or some other objection, the judge would prefer you mention it. Judges are supposed to read all comments. In theory, commenting is sufficient to bring it to their attention, and it will be weighted accordingly.
I know, but I don't see anything wrong in being able to also express that info in the poll itself. That way a judge can at a quick glance see that someone has an objection, and look forward to it in the comments. What is so wrong about this that it seems completely out of question?
AnS wrote:
Which one exactly? Because I see a lot of possible additional options that solve one minor problem at a time.
"Not ok for publication". (Not necessarily using those exact words, but as an idea.)
Guys, relax. The poll has never mattered and will never matter.
For the easy choices with 100 yes and 1 no vote (there'll never be 0, right?) and the other easy choices with 20 no votes, the judges would've figured it out on their own without any votes.
On the controversial submissions, what matters are the arguments posted in the thread, not the amount of votes.
So please stop worrying about the votes. Just pick one. If you feel like your opinion cannot be sufficiently expressed by the three choices contained within, write a post. The judges will figure it out.
It doesn't really matter what the actual question presented in the poll is. Voting "yes" still feels strongly like voting pro publication. If there's a problem with the run, voting "yes" feels like saying "there's a problem with the run preventing publication, but I still think it can be published (after all, I am voting 'yes'...)", which feels contradictory.
Yes, it is like saying "I want the movie to get more publicity despite its problems". You don't always base your opinion on rules of an Internet site. If rules could cover all possible cases, we wouldn't even need the poll, since judging could be automated. But there are things beyond rules.
I guess everyone has different priorities, and it seems you value rules more than anything else. Naturally, you can't be entertained by an outlaw movie no matter what it shows. So, in that case it's perfectly fine to answer No to the question about entertainment, because the negative feelings outweight the positive.
Warp wrote:
I don't really see a good reason why there could not be a voting option to indicate an objection to publication
The option you're looking for is "No" vote. It sums up all the negativity that you get when experiencing the movie (both when watching and when reading the submission text/comments/etc).
Warp wrote:
I don't really see a good reason why there could not be a voting option to indicate an objection to publication, and I don't really understand the seemingly strong opposition to the idea. What exactly is the problem?
1. Current poll is pure and free of hacks - all the three options are located on the same axis, so it can be seen as a simplified rating of the movie. There's even "Confidence Formula" using the options like weights of a single scale. This feature will be lost if you add options that don't follow the same logic as other options.
2. The only practical use of the suggested option is to notify judges AKA to state the obvious. This is extremely minor need, and is better done via comments only. There are a lot of similar minor issues that would also want to jump the bandwagon and reserve an option in the poll. For example, I personally don't like how recent Pacifist runs become more and more similar to normal runs (following only the letter of the law and blowing up everything that is not directly prohinited), so I would want an option to vote "Yes, except redo the level 2 which has an ugly indirect kill". But I understand that adding such an option would be ridiculous. So I just sum up all my feelings and vote accordingly (e.g. when I see an inhonest pacifist movie, it must be extremely entertaining to have my Yes vote; if it's only mildly entertaining, it receives either Meh or No - depending on how much it breaks my rule of pacifism).
Warp wrote:
I don't see anything wrong in being able to also express that info in the poll itself. That way a judge can at a quick glance see that someone has an objection, and look forward to it in the comments. What is so wrong about this that it seems completely out of question?
The poll is definitely not a place for this sort of thing. I thought you were purist.
