[Student]

Originally Posted by Babylon

Well firstly there should be a written standard for more intelligent forms of fair voting immediately read by any new FVC member, if there isn't one already (which why on earth wouldn't there be?)

Just because a field is subjective doesn't exclude it from being able to be explained in detail to lead others to the right side of the fence > Which is fair voting > Which is easily explained

The problem with the FVC was that it was too easy to bullshit your way into without _ACTUALLY_ being a fair voter. This could be remedied by simply having a person review the WAY the fvc members vote both before being included and semi-regularly after, and the subsequent removal of those who are shitty examples of fair voters. To my view it was just inefficiently ran in some aspects, it was a great concept. Though, admittedly less great when the active userbase caps at 30 max.

So, perhaps it should be on the backburner for now.

I think the problem is that the aspect of dealing with people who just don't give a fuck about regularity and will just vote how they feel like is hard to judge. Judge as in assign people as superior voters. People will absolutely bullshit to get in a "club", vote a certain way (long expos, line by line breakdowns) but then they get lazy (What "blank" said, you know I'm always fair, super close battle here guys but fairs in) type shit but they will still rock the title and colored name like a boyscout badge. I feel like a standard or guideline would just encourage further doppelgangers.

Originally Posted by Rant

This is false. The closest the FVC came to working, was when the criteria for what WAS VOTED ON was changed by Noble. Focusing, instead of battles asked to be voted on, the open battles, the hotlisted battles, and the battles closing soon. The biggest problem with the FVC was that it came to a point where it was being picked and chosen by the individual what they WANTED to vote on. As opposed to having a strict set of battles TO vote on.

I liked the focus on more popular battles BUT maybe it would work as a hidden group, the titles and colored names take away from the prestige of essentially having a higher VP then most members. They could be PM'd informing them of their higher VP and maybe a bi-weekly or weekly PM of current battles and not make it mandatory but at least vote on half of the battles within a month.

Originally Posted by Bleu

It never worked consistently tbh. Any "good idea" only lasted a month because people aren't genuinely interested in voting on the majority of battles.

Judging a battle is only subjective if you make it so. I judge battles by objectively asking myself what takes more skill / effort? And go in depth on the intricacies of a verse. It takes a higher knowledge / understanding / experience cap nonetheless but it is definitely fair.

You actually know how to battle though, this isn't a witch hunt to say who's a bad voter (clearly not you champ) this is for the weasels who make their way in the FVC, well my whole point is. I agree with your point on judging a battle isn't subjective, it should always be viewed as a non-biased party, I meant picking people who are good voters is subjective, hence the past FVC members.

Originally Posted by EtH

I just pick the one that surrounded their rhymes by the most symbols tbh.

The would've worked in 2007 but I haven't seen that shit in awhile, pretty much ~ and that's about it.

[Student]

Originally Posted by Babylon

Well firstly there should be a written standard for more intelligent forms of fair voting immediately read by any new FVC member, if there isn't one already (which why on earth wouldn't there be?)

Just because a field is subjective doesn't exclude it from being able to be explained in detail to lead others to the right side of the fence > Which is fair voting > Which is easily explained

The problem with the FVC was that it was too easy to bullshit your way into without _ACTUALLY_ being a fair voter. This could be remedied by simply having a person review the WAY the fvc members vote both before being included and semi-regularly after, and the subsequent removal of those who are shitty examples of fair voters. To my view it was just inefficiently ran in some aspects, it was a great concept. Though, admittedly less great when the active userbase caps at 30 max.

So, perhaps it should be on the backburner for now.

I think the problem is that the aspect of dealing with people who just don't give a fuck about regularity and will just vote how they feel like is hard to judge. Judge as in assign people as superior voters. People will absolutely bullshit to get in a "club", vote a certain way (long expos, line by line breakdowns) but then they get lazy (What "blank" said, you know I'm always fair, super close battle here guys but fairs in) type shit but they will still rock the title and colored name like a boyscout badge. I feel like a standard or guideline would just encourage further doppelgangers.

Originally Posted by Rant

This is false. The closest the FVC came to working, was when the criteria for what WAS VOTED ON was changed by Noble. Focusing, instead of battles asked to be voted on, the open battles, the hotlisted battles, and the battles closing soon. The biggest problem with the FVC was that it came to a point where it was being picked and chosen by the individual what they WANTED to vote on. As opposed to having a strict set of battles TO vote on.

I liked the focus on more popular battles BUT maybe it would work as a hidden group, the titles and colored names take away from the prestige of essentially having a higher VP then most members. They could be PM'd informing them of their higher VP and maybe a bi-weekly or weekly PM of current battles and not make it mandatory but at least vote on half of the battles within a month.

Originally Posted by Bleu

It never worked consistently tbh. Any "good idea" only lasted a month because people aren't genuinely interested in voting on the majority of battles.

Judging a battle is only subjective if you make it so. I judge battles by objectively asking myself what takes more skill / effort? And go in depth on the intricacies of a verse. It takes a higher knowledge / understanding / experience cap nonetheless but it is definitely fair.

You actually know how to battle though, this isn't a witch hunt to say who's a bad voter (clearly not you champ) this is for the weasels who make their way in the FVC, well my whole point is. I agree with your point on judging a battle isn't subjective, it should always be viewed as a non-biased party, I meant picking people who are good voters is subjective, hence the past FVC members.

Originally Posted by EtH

I just pick the one that surrounded their rhymes by the most symbols tbh.

The would've worked in 2007 but I haven't seen that shit in awhile, pretty much ~ and that's about it.