voting on 400+ entries is hard for some people. an idea i had is to give more criticists points per vote after a while, to make 100%-voting on large compos more attractive.
for example: after 50 entry-votes in one battle, you get 2 points per vote, after 100 you get 3 and so on.
that would make 8 points per vote for advent calendar at the end, but we rarely have compos with over 300 entries.

or a different formular.

if you don't have much time to spend on botb and want to be a chipist rather than a criticist, that's one more reason not to vote much. maybe if you vote 7 times 100% you get like a criticist badge that goes with the mighty/ascended/admin badges? people want badges!

badges are stupid.
points are what people use to compare site activity. it only makes sense to get more points for more votes.
youre already a passionate criticist, no matter if your class currently says "Criticist" or "Chipist". the class is used to represent your behaviour on the page. if you vote a lot, of course your class will represent this. i was a taggist for a full year.
stopping participation in [whatever activity] just because you dont want a class change is dumb imo. it should rather encourage you to get more active in battles, if you want this to represent you.

I can say I agree with YQN. I think it would be nicer if classes represented what the users "create" rather than what they "do" on the site. So I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if criticist, taggist and playa gave points for a different reward/class system since they aren't directly related to creating entries.
But I am totally fine with the current system too. It is just a design choice after all.

botb isnt only about creating entries, its about participating in general and being part of the community.

"badges are stupid."

i am not used to reading such comments by you :scratches_head:
nothing is intrinsically stupid, stupidity necessarily implies a goal, and you don't get to choose what goals botbrs assign themselves. i'm not sure i get what you mean. badges reflect botbrs activity in a decorative way, they are nice to look at and i think people like having them, as the celebrations in the chatrooms seem to demonstrate.

"points are what people use to compare site activity. it only makes sense to get more points for more votes.
youre already a passionate criticist, no matter if your class currently says "Criticist" or "Chipist". the class is used to represent your behaviour on the page. if you vote a lot, of course your class will represent this. i was a taggist for a full year."

and you complained about it, asking admins to change it. classes are part of the fun, part of how we defines ourselves as botbrs. points are not the only thing people use to compare site activity. points are an amount, classes are classes, they're different information.

"stopping participation in [whatever activity] just because you dont want a class change is dumb imo. it should rather encourage you to get more active in battles, if you want this to represent you. "

your place (or anyone's) is not to judge or decide what people should do. people will use the site as they please whether you like it or not, whether you find it dumb or not. if you design a tool for a purpose, and people use said tool for other purposes, it's not because they're dumb, it's because your design was bad. if you're trying to induce certain behaviours you have to take people into account and not just call stupid those who don't do as you planned.

i want retroactive crit points with INTEREST

well i would think if i say "badges are stupid" in a comment that shows over 50 badges that i collected it would be obvious that this wasnt a serious sentence.
i never complained about my points in general, the reason why i wanted them to get removed was because other people might have a problem with them, not me.

"points are an amount, classes are classes, they're different information"
not entirely, classes are based on points. and as i said: botb isnt only about creating entries, its about participating in general and being part of the community.

which means the points should represent your activity in a way that makes it more obvious how much time you spent on what. voting on a major battle over weeks is giving you one point per entry while rendering an entry within a few minutes is giving you points for every play. i just think its unbalanced and thats why i suggested this change.

"your place (or anyone's) is not to judge or decide what people should do."
exactly, youre free to do whatever you want. im still allowed to say what i think about it tho.

this discussion is completely off my initial argument. points should represent your activity and where you put more time into. the class you get assigned shows where you put the most time into. thats all.
thats literally how botb classes/points work, and i didnt come up with it.
i think criticists, especially because they are very important to make battles work correctly, should get a better representation of what they're doing and how much time they are investing to keep botb running and working how it is.

well i would think if i say "badges are stupid" in a comment that shows over 50 badges that i collected it would be obvious that this wasnt a serious sentence.

definitely not obvious. humans are known to be far more paradoxical than that ;) besides, if it wasn't serious, what was it supposed to mean?


i never complained about my points in general, the reason why i wanted them to get removed was because other people might have a problem with them, not me.

ok, that being said i totally understand why one would want to be part of one specific class. each one to their preferences.


"points are an amount, classes are classes, they're different information"
not entirely, classes are based on points.

still different. there's nothing to argue here. same difference as grams vs cake ingredients.


and as i said: botb isnt only about creating entries, its about participating in general and being part of the community.

which means the points should represent your activity in a way that makes it more obvious how much time you spent on what.

that botb would be about being part of a community does not imply that points should represent how time is spent. are you not mistaking your personal preferences for a set of rules? also isn't effort more important than time? or equally?


voting on a major battle over weeks is giving you one point per entry while rendering an entry within a few minutes is giving you points for every play. i just think its unbalanced and thats why i suggested this change.

why not, i understand the motivation, i was questioning the outcome of your suggestion, and whether it would give the right incentive.


"your place (or anyone's) is not to judge or decide what people should do."
exactly, youre free to do whatever you want. im still allowed to say what i think about it tho.

i never suggested the opposite, i think you missed my main point which was: rewarding more points for votings might have a different outcome than the one you are expecting. you basically replied "that would be dumb behaviour", showing more interest for how you think your incentives *should* be perceived than for how they could be in reality. maybe i'm wrong but you haven't addressed my point yet.


this discussion is completely off my initial argument. points should represent your activity and where you put more time into. the class you get assigned shows where you put the most time into. thats all.
thats literally how botb classes/points work, and i didnt come up with it.

fine, take my input into consideration then. :)


i think criticists, especially because they are very important to make battles work correctly, should get a better representation of what they're doing and how much time they are investing to keep botb running and working how it is.

agreed. i think a criticist badge next to the mighty badge would help ;)

*evil laugh*

Being a Criticist class is much more about being the embodiment of "never trust a skinny chef" and making few enough entries to have that magical vote:create ratio than just adhering to the normal courtesies of "you should listen and vote on your peers in a compo if you expect others to vote on yours" and "you should generally listen to what the community has to offer"

As a reminder, the INF stat is its own reward for voting completely.

That said, if you're desperate to spec into a specific class, this is what alt accounts are for.

[edit: fully read the thread]

@YQN, nah sometimes idea and people are just stupid lol. imo to not be dismissive of stupidity is an insult to everyone else.

It should be overall taken with a grain of salt what displays as your class as it doesn't tell your full story. Eg. kleeder has more than double my criticist points yet I'm the top Criticist. He's put in all the work for multiple classes but really is only allowed the 1 "chipist" to define himself.

I am generally in favor of a buff because I also believe that your point spread should reflect your _time_ spent here. Time is a much more absolute measure than whatever the fuck _effort_ could be measured in.

I feel like it needs to be said that afaik there is no safety measure to someone just randomly voting and not actually listening to entries, or only listening to 20sec of a 20min song, just to farm points. Otherwise I'd suggest the points given out to be based on the _entry duration_ to be the new buff.

there has been conversations in the past about having a criticist or playa point bonus for voting on all entries of a major equal to the number of entries which, if you've entered any entries into that major, could be more points than you got directly for voting

did anyone understand me at all?

Even then it miiight still be weak. There really is no known target to what would make it "fair" buff but it is fairly obvious now that it could use a buff.


That, or nerf everything else . You get ONE chipist point per entry made 💩

If you bring down other points the same level as criticist points, it becomes obvious how weak they are.

yes, i think it is ok just to leave it be for regular batol, like ohb and such.
however, i think of the idea, of having just a 5 point (or however much) boost for voting 100 percent, depending on size of batol as mentioned previously..
but i am still scared of it being misused, like having aimless votes for sole purposes of farming points.. ahaha.. ( ^ ^ ; ;

you can never make entirely sure that troll voting isnt happening. but if you see an acc with suspicious behaviour, tell an admin. there were some troll voting attempts in the past for points and people got punished for it.
i dont think its fair for the majority of people who take voting seriously, if they're treated like their effort doesnt matter only because a few people are trying to abuse it.

i mean if you vote and give 1 tag to every entry thats 2 points per entry... if you do this on advent calendar ur gonna get a pretty penny. i think this is more than enough points incentive tbh

thx for taking the time to reply kleeder. how respectful of you.

no problem, youre welcome

my bad, i thought disrespect was inappropriate. i would like to know how this reply is different from "fuck you"

i like the idea of getting a couple extra points for voting on every entry (edit: for majors only), and while i agree with the concern of one getting an unwanted class because of that, i think it's just a matter of finetuning how many extra points are given

im neutral about the badge thing, could be cool for the people that like them i guess? i dunno i personally dont think a criticist badge is necessary

unless that means......

yes..............

a criticist ohb.............

"ive no idea what this argument is about.."
let me sum it up:

kleeder: more points for criticists
yqn: might give the wrong incentive
kleeder: to idiots
yqn: yet it might happen
kleeder: i don't give a shit about you or the point you're trying to make

maybe i got something wrong but that's my honest point of view on the matter.

i'm not enough of a fool to expect all botbrs to be nice but i did not know kleeder to be disrespectful, childish and unwilling to have a constructive conversation, dodging points instead of addressing them.

indeed maybe the amount of botbrs who would get the wrong incentive is negligible, in which case so was my point, but sadly kleeder did not address it and was just unpleasant from the start and disrespectful for no apparent reason. i was just trying to shine a different light on the problem to better apprehend it (as jessica robo did - and the reply was no better btw). the disdain was very much unnecessary, especially from an admin who should, more than the rest, try to remain constructive. very disappointed in kleeder. :(

i'm of the opinion that shouldn't be any voting at all - this would simplify everything a lot, and save a lot of people of totally unnecessary conflict, unpleasantness and subjectivity

i say a crit badge that levels like normal badges. 250 votes = 1 badge point. donezo

I’m almost exclusively a criticist, so I thought I’d chip in. Here are some thoughts.

1) I assume we’re talking about voting on major battles, rather than voting in XHBs.

2) Vote weighting is already being used, to encourage those who vote to vote on all the entries, and to discourage strategic voting (https://battleofthebits.com/lyceum/View/voter+strength/). I’m not sure whether vote weighting addresses kleeder’s concern, which has primarily to do with the burden of voting on a large number of entries in a short period of time.

3) Making sure that an appropriate amount of time is allotted for voting can go a long way toward resolving this issue. If you’re expecting tens of entries, a week should be sufficient. If you’re expecting hundreds of entries, a week is not sufficient. (This is a recurring issue with the quarterly Chip and Tracks majors—it should be clear by now that two weeks is insufficient for voting, and yet every time two weeks are allotted, people complain, and there’s an extension at the last minute.)

4) If you want more people to vote, and to vote on everything, then stop having silly voting categories that provide little or no guidance on what we’re supposed to be evaluating the entries on. (“Hot chocolate”? “Candlelight”? Come on.) When I vote, the only category I pay attention to is the “... in pants” category, because I understand what that means. I then arbitrarily use the first two categories for sound design and the second two for compositional elements.

5) I think the simplest solution is to make voting concurrent with entry. As soon as an entry has been made, you should be able to vote on it. If you want to create a ranking in your head of all the entries in a category and then vote accordingly, then you can wait until all the entries are in. If, like me, you evaluate each entry on its own terms when voting, then there’s no problem with immediate voting.

I'm not a superfan of the criticist class in the first place, and I'm in it! Tbh giving more points for more voting would be a disincentive to me.

tonreihe:

1) yes

2) voter strength is a concept im aware of and i think its mostly used to avoid "i like this one, i vote all7 -done"-behaviour to have a big impact or if your friend decides to join only to vote on your stuff and nothing else. im not sure how much this actually supports 100%-voting because most people arent aware of it i guess. its much more obvious to have a "you got a point :D"-message. thats motivating! (at least for me hehe)

3) well you already talk about extensions here. the problem with people in general is that most of them tend to vote on the last weekend, because they think "nah i still have a week, i can do it later". if you start with 4 weeks voting, i bet most people will still start on the last 2 days and run into time issues. (BUT i think thats something we can easily test and see if it effects the voting behaviour)

4) youre addressing my own voting cats here and the reason why i used them is kinda easy: because every other battle has meaningless voting cats as well. afair the vague voting categories are because we want people to come up with their own interpretation and to not put the focus on one specific aspect of what music/art can be like, because it might work against an entry that is "great by itself" but "mediocre regarding the voting cats" if that makes sense. but i get why people dont like the random voting cat names. (i personally like them tho)

5) i thought about this already, and i personally just write votes or voting-predictions into a spreadsheet and just transcribe them to the vote form later. thats still a lot of work but it feels like a bit less work for me lol
a problem here would be resubmits. what if a botbr votes on an illegal entry for example (all1) and the botbr resubmits with a legal, banger entry. but the voter never log back in because... uhh they died in a car accident (rip). thats a dumb example but you probably get my point lol
apart from that i dont remember why "realtime"-voting isnt allowed on major battles. puke7 can probably say more things about this :D

kleeder:

3) Well, if the issue is getting people to vote in a timely manner, rather than wait until the last minute and then complain that they don’t have time, maybe we should give point bonuses to early voters. It would be better if folks thought ahead a bit more, though.

4) No, I wasn’t picking on you in particular lol. And I actually don’t have a problem with vague voting categories, since the point is to have a variety of ways in which people can do well in the voting. Tin cans have this function too, if I understand them correctly. The category names do tend to be cringe, though.

5) Resubmits are a good counterexample. My first reaction is to wonder how common resubmits would be—if they’re rare, we could just decide that this isn’t a problem. My second reaction is to suggest that resubmits void any votes that have been cast so far. The issue then would be, how do you find out that you need to vote again? It would be good if there were some way to screen the entries so that you pick out the ones that needed to be voted on. puke7 can let us know if this is technically possible. :)

crit badge gives you a 0.5% chance to deal triple damage