I think the current poll works fine so far, and gives a general idea of where your movie stands. If anything though i find there is never enough commenting. It's kind of makes me wonder what someone voted yes/no/meh yet there is no comments or a bit more. It's alot more helpful to see what people thought through personal opinion than a silent vote.
I agree with Warp. I usually vote yes even if the run wasn't so entertaining‚ but is imo worth published. I'd like to be able to make the distinction in the poll itself.
I problably made mistakes, sorry for my bad English, I'm French :v
Do we really need to have this argument every few months?
The very fact that the subject regularly comes up is an indication that the poll does not fully reflect what people want to vote.
I honestly cannot comprehend what the problem would be if the users would be given the option to vote what they want to vote. The only option given currently, if voting "yes" or "no" feels awkward (as I described earlier) is to abstain from voting, which in itself feels like some kind of protest against the system, which is not necessarily what one wants to do.
I really have come to the conclusion that this has become a question of pure stubbornness.
No, Warp, because the last time this came up (that I'm aware of), you were leading the charge, just as you're doing now. This isn't a whole bunch of users rising up to say, "Hey, this is a major problem with the site." Instead, it's mostly you trying to enforce your vision of what the poll should be.
Warp wrote:
I honestly cannot comprehend what the problem would be if the users would be given the option to vote what they want to vote. The only option given currently, if voting "yes" or "no" feels awkward (as I described earlier) is to abstain from voting, which in itself feels like some kind of protest against the system, which is not necessarily what one wants to do.
I really have come to the conclusion that this has become a question of pure stubbornness.
Yes, it is stubbornness-- on your part. You whine and whine and whine about how the non-binding poll is not uniquely tailored to suit your needs and are consistently told the same things: "judges aren't bound by the poll", "more valuable feedback can be (and is) left in the comments", "the poll provides feedback to the viewers, not the judges", and so on. And you seem to think you aren't being understood, or worse, actively ignored. No Warp, we all get you loud and clear. It's just that most of us (including the powers that be) think that there isn't a problem, or even to the extent that there is, it isn't worth making a fuss over.
Honestly, I think that this whole hullabaloo is a byproduct of working with very pedantic people-- programmers in particular. Everything is taken extremely literally and when faced with a choice of three options, none of which is quite what you're looking for, you think, "Program error!" and do the only thing you (think you) can and report it to the admins. When you're told, "We hear you. We don't care," you think, "But I still have the same program error!" and you just repeat yourself more loudly than before, insisting that it's a major impediment to you enjoying the site and you can't pipe down about it, regardless of how small the "program error" is.
Warp, you're so opinionated and so quick to dive into arguments, I'm often left baffled and want to know: Do you ever get tired?
I have no doubt that it's already been mentioned, but why not just have 4 options?
"do you think this movie should be published"
Yes - moons
Yes - vault
No - some reason
Other - reason/s posted.
Would it even matter if I said that's not it? Probably not, given that your attitude is like:
You whine and whine and whine
I really have to wonder if you are deliberately trying to taunt me. That kind of language isn't very polite, you know? I'm almost tempted to consider you a troll (with the correspondent credibility.)
There has been no "whining" in this thread. The only one who seems to be whining is you, and if you don't have anything more productive to do than trying to troll me, then you can keep it to yourself. I'm honestly tired of people like you.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Atma wrote:
I have no doubt that it's already been mentioned, but why not just have 4 options?
"do you think this movie should be published"
Yes - moons
Yes - vault
No - some reason
Other - reason/s posted.
The problem here is that the Vault has little to know subjective criteria. You don't need to say "It was worth publishing to vault even though I wasn't entertained", if the submissions qualifies it will get published there. And it will whether or not majority opinion agrees. What if we have a play around, and everyone voted "Yes - vault"? It still wouldn't go to the vault, and worse yet we aren't left with the necessary information to make a decision: whether or not people were simply entertained by this movie.
From a casual perspective, what comes to mind is this.
What is a vault? What does these vaults do?
Publication? What is publication?
How do I know if a movie is worth publication?
On the other hand, a simple "yes/no/meh" is straightforward. Did I find it entertaining? Sure! Maybe not (meh). No, it was boring. No need to bother with technical details and let the judges do their work.
Why should we have to worry about if it acceptable for publication or not? That is kind of the problem with Warp's suggestion, at least from my perspective.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6439
Location: The land down under.
I'm actually going to attempt the first question.
EEssentia wrote:
What is a vault? What does these vaults do?
The vault is the section where undesirable TASes/Branches can go.
By Branches I mean something like Pepsiman.
The Game itself is pretty silly and the Branch given was 100% the issue of it this TAS is that it became a bit too repetitive.
The other issue is that it is a superhuman TAS... but with that stated this is a superhuman TAS which hit Moon.
From my understanding the superhuman TAS I mentioned always changed and it always had a... form of style where it was very quick and it kept changing, compared to the one in the vault which waited for others.
Another example of something that hit Vault when it was created was the GBA port of SMW(God I hate my old comments)
There are many issues with the GBA version compared to the SNES version... one of them is being the sound.
There has been attempted improvements to update that TAS but that would take time and would need proper execution.
The issue with ports is that sometimes the ports themselves actually do not end up entering the vault instead reaching the moons... (Example 1 and Example 2)
The Vault keeps the Atari TASes or else they would all be rejected (except for 2).
It's all on the payload and how much can be done in quick succession while keeping the entertaining vibes (like all Playrounds).
Yes the Judges can actually make mistakes and put something in the Moon which was meant to be Vault as the people themselves Voted Yes towards Vault instead of hitting Meh but overall the system we have now is correct and it only needs to be defined a little bit better.
No - Clear signs of improvement (etc.) (Reject)
Yes - Entertaining (Moon/Stars)
Meh - Boring (Vault)
And as I realized after writing that I think I went off-topic from the question itself.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
No - Clear signs of improvement (etc.) (Reject)
Yes - Entertaining (Moon/Stars)
Meh - Boring (Vault)
This is the poll I'd love to see. This would be a perfect solution to the problem. I would re-word "Meh" though to something like "Yes but...". Meh comes off as "IDK what to think of the run, or care" rather than "Looks like a well made TAS, but it's boring".
The poll I'd suggest:
No - Clear improvements to be made/this game doesn't belong on the site, etc (reject)
Yes but... - Well made, but not entertaining (vault)
Yes - Well made and entertaining. (moon/star tier)
For an any% or 100% TAS, the current question is mostly sufficient (though it would still be nice to have an option for "this TAS is too sloppy/slower/doesn't fulfill its goals and shouldn't even go in the vault") because in that case one is only determining which tier the run should be published in.
But for TASes of other goals which currently aren't allowed in the Vault, the implication of not being fun enough for Moons is not being published at all. So regardless of what the poll text says, the real question is "should this TAS be published", and hence that's the question people are going to answer. And the answer to that may be different from the answer to "were you entertained", because some people don't agree that only any% and 100% deserve record keeping. For example, I think that any optimized TAS of a category with a well-defined non-entertainment-based obsoletion criterion (i.e. not playarounds, but most other categories) should be allowed in the Vault.
Another example of the "were you entertained" question being insufficient would be a very sloppy but entertaining TAS. The vote should make it possible to point out that there is a serious problem with a TAS despite it being entertaining.
So I suggest asking these questions:
Does this TAS fulfil its stated goals? (Eg. does a "no A button TAS" actually not press the A button)
Is it sufficiently optimized?
Is it entertaining? (determines Moon eligibility)
Should it be published? (not binding, of course)
Of course, the best thing to do is to not just answer the poll, but also post a response. But if what you want to say has already been said, it feels spammy to post "me too" or just repeat those points if you don't have anything to add. One way around this would be a moderation system like what they have on stackoverflow or slashdot, but that would require huge changes to the forum which I do not think are realistic. And in the absence of that, I think adding more granularity to the question being asked would both satisfy voters and make more information available to judges.
I love the idea of using pictures in the poll!
And I think a good addition would be to put a link called e.g. 'explanation' in the poll header, that goes to the wiki page on how the judging process works. That's useful for new users, and people who already know this probably aren't bothered by one li'l hyperlink.
Above all, I think that the poll should remain accessible to anyone, including people new to the site that haven't memorized all the rules. If anything, I'd reduce the barrier for participation - we want as broad a spectrum of opinions as we can get.
"Yes, vault" and "Yes, moons" would be a differentiation someone new couldn't make. Same for "It's entertaining and ok to publish" versus "It's entertaining but violates some rules". Adding these or similar options means that we will lose some votes, simply because some viewers cannot answer the question they were given.
I agree that the poll doesn't need to mention the tiers at all. This is genuinely something that judges ought to decide based on the reception, and the information of whether it's "moon-worthy" or "vault-worthy" is rather inconsequential in the poll. It's enough for the poll to have the "I liked it" and "I didn't like it" options.
(My original suggestion for the third option "there's a problem with this submission" still stands, though. Again, not because it would somehow be something that decides publication or rejection, but as an outlet for people to express their concerns in the poll system, and as a way for the voter to say "it was boring, but I don't object to publication".)
amaurea has a good point, actually. Something that at least makes me agree somewhat with Warp.
If a submission has a problem that makes it unsuitable for publication (say, it forgoes a known shortcut), it does indeed feel a bit spammy to point this out when someone already has. In that case, you might end up with a bunch of viewers being entertained ('yes' votes) and just a single post in the forum that states the problem. I'm not a judge, but I'd have a hard time deciding on what to do.
In this case, a 'yes but there's a problem' vote might actually be useful. Of course, this is a bit of a rare case... People here are generally fairly quick to (even repeatedly) point out issues with the submission.
What concerns me here is that so far, nobody claims that they don't understand the system; and yet, the votes we actually get on submissions often don't match the poll questions. Which implies to me that either a) people are lying on this poll, b) the people who don't understand the system didn't look at this thread at all; or c) people fully understand the system but intentionally subvert it because they disagree with the way it works.
FWIW, I voted "subpar but we can't come up with anything better", because IIRC there are technical problems with changing the options to something other than Yes/No/Meh, and although it's clear that people aren't using the poll for its intended purpose, I can't think of a better solution to that. If you change the poll to "Do you think this should be published?", it then isn't producing the information that judges actually care about. (Arguably, it isn't anyway, but we should at least give it a chance.)
Thus, it's probably just best for TAS viewers to just keep posting their reasons in the thread, so that they can make it clear what their opinions on entertainment and acceptability are.
What concerns me here is that so far, nobody claims that they don't understand the system; and yet, the votes we actually get on submissions often don't match the poll questions. Which implies to me that either a) people are lying on this poll, b) the people who don't understand the system didn't look at this thread at all; or c) people fully understand the system but intentionally subvert it because they disagree with the way it works.
Or d) people think they fully understand the system but are mistaken about that. It is not uncommon to see posts in the workbench like "this should definitely be in the vault: yes vote". That's clearly someone who thinks he understands the system, but actually doesn't.
After all, it's not obvious where to find an explanation of how the system works, and it's also changed at least once in the past years.
