FVC 2020 Discussion

Originally Posted by Aggo

I think you have fantastic ideas. Part of the issue is the guys who have been here the longest. The guys with the most knowledge on how to write and therefore vote on a battle. The guys who you really want to have in the FVC are at the point where it's like asking Hitori Hanzo to spend his free time critiquing, rating, and suggesting how to improve walmart cutlery. You can either get a bunch of hungry dudes eager to prove themselves to leave a lot of votes with an inflated sense of importance, or you can get a bunch of vets who have tasted and been the chefs behind the finest filets, and feed them a bunch of value meals and ask them to respond passionately to the experience.

Maybe have to FVC groups. A group of hungry less experienced voters. They have 1 or 2 vp. Their goal is activity. Vote on as much as possible. Say what you think. Do what you mean. Just vote. Whether its fundamentally right or wrong is less important. State your opinion, vote as you see fit.

Another group is more seasoned. Bets who may lack the
Drive to vote but certainly have the credentials. Their vote Carries weight. They may be rare, but you can damn well be sure its calculated. Maybe these are on more high profile battles. Maybe they sometimes peruse the lower ranked opens but they have a higher vp and its cuz they know their shit.

As I think on it, this makes the most sense. FVC has never been super successful, this might be the thing.

yea i think this is the move. great idea. this solves my worry about inactive fvc members.

one more thought. who's to say who deserves the higher vp or not. i've seen some elite battlers put some questionable votes. i've seen old heads that are considered elite drop horrible votes. i'm just curious what the standard is for a "4 vp fvc member"

Originally Posted by Aggo

I think you have fantastic ideas. Part of the issue is the guys who have been here the longest. The guys with the most knowledge on how to write and therefore vote on a battle. The guys who you really want to have in the FVC are at the point where it's like asking Hitori Hanzo to spend his free time critiquing, rating, and suggesting how to improve walmart cutlery. You can either get a bunch of hungry dudes eager to prove themselves to leave a lot of votes with an inflated sense of importance, or you can get a bunch of vets who have tasted and been the chefs behind the finest filets, and feed them a bunch of value meals and ask them to respond passionately to the experience.

Maybe have to FVC groups. A group of hungry less experienced voters. They have 1 or 2 vp. Their goal is activity. Vote on as much as possible. Say what you think. Do what you mean. Just vote. Whether its fundamentally right or wrong is less important. State your opinion, vote as you see fit.

Another group is more seasoned. Bets who may lack the
Drive to vote but certainly have the credentials. Their vote Carries weight. They may be rare, but you can damn well be sure its calculated. Maybe these are on more high profile battles. Maybe they sometimes peruse the lower ranked opens but they have a higher vp and its cuz they know their shit.

As I think on it, this makes the most sense. FVC has never been super successful, this might be the thing.

yea i think this is the move. great idea. this solves my worry about inactive fvc members.

one more thought. who's to say who deserves the higher vp or not. i've seen some elite battlers put some questionable votes. i've seen old heads that are considered elite drop horrible votes. i'm just curious what the standard is for a "4 vp fvc member"

[Edgeworth]

I’m more with RULE in that the FVC should be about quality over quantity. Overall voting numbers is a site issue. It’s the fair voters club not just the active voters club. Let the FVC be the dudes who’s vote carries weight and are gonna drop educated well explained fairs on the regular. If you have someone who has 1 or 2 vp and they just vote a lot, does that really necessitate putting them in the FVC? We’ll already see their voting activity based on the new badges

[Edgeworth]

I’m more with RULE in that the FVC should be about quality over quantity. Overall voting numbers is a site issue. It’s the fair voters club not just the active voters club. Let the FVC be the dudes who’s vote carries weight and are gonna drop educated well explained fairs on the regular. If you have someone who has 1 or 2 vp and they just vote a lot, does that really necessitate putting them in the FVC? We’ll already see their voting activity based on the new badges

[Brayne Ded]

Originally Posted by Aggo

I think you have fantastic ideas. Part of the issue is the guys who have been here the longest. The guys with the most knowledge on how to write and therefore vote on a battle. The guys who you really want to have in the FVC are at the point where it's like asking Hitori Hanzo to spend his free time critiquing, rating, and suggesting how to improve walmart cutlery. You can either get a bunch of hungry dudes eager to prove themselves to leave a lot of votes with an inflated sense of importance, or you can get a bunch of vets who have tasted and been the chefs behind the finest filets, and feed them a bunch of value meals and ask them to respond passionately to the experience.

Maybe have to FVC groups. A group of hungry less experienced voters. They have 1 or 2 vp. Their goal is activity. Vote on as much as possible. Say what you think. Do what you mean. Just vote. Whether its fundamentally right or wrong is less important. State your opinion, vote as you see fit.

Another group is more seasoned. Bets who may lack the
Drive to vote but certainly have the credentials. Their vote Carries weight. They may be rare, but you can damn well be sure its calculated. Maybe these are on more high profile battles. Maybe they sometimes peruse the lower ranked opens but they have a higher vp and its cuz they know their shit.

As I think on it, this makes the most sense. FVC has never been super successful, this might be the thing.

This is a solid idea. Kudos to Aggo.

[Brayne Ded]

Originally Posted by Aggo

I think you have fantastic ideas. Part of the issue is the guys who have been here the longest. The guys with the most knowledge on how to write and therefore vote on a battle. The guys who you really want to have in the FVC are at the point where it's like asking Hitori Hanzo to spend his free time critiquing, rating, and suggesting how to improve walmart cutlery. You can either get a bunch of hungry dudes eager to prove themselves to leave a lot of votes with an inflated sense of importance, or you can get a bunch of vets who have tasted and been the chefs behind the finest filets, and feed them a bunch of value meals and ask them to respond passionately to the experience.

Maybe have to FVC groups. A group of hungry less experienced voters. They have 1 or 2 vp. Their goal is activity. Vote on as much as possible. Say what you think. Do what you mean. Just vote. Whether its fundamentally right or wrong is less important. State your opinion, vote as you see fit.

Another group is more seasoned. Bets who may lack the
Drive to vote but certainly have the credentials. Their vote Carries weight. They may be rare, but you can damn well be sure its calculated. Maybe these are on more high profile battles. Maybe they sometimes peruse the lower ranked opens but they have a higher vp and its cuz they know their shit.

As I think on it, this makes the most sense. FVC has never been super successful, this might be the thing.

This is a solid idea. Kudos to Aggo.

at this point, i'm starting to see no purpose in the fvc.

everyone should have their vp adjusted between 0-4 depending on the quality of their votes. fvc should contain the more active of the higher vp users. simple as that.

having dudes who vote ten times in the fvc is worthless.

at this point, i'm starting to see no purpose in the fvc.

everyone should have their vp adjusted between 0-4 depending on the quality of their votes. fvc should contain the more active of the higher vp users. simple as that.

having dudes who vote ten times in the fvc is worthless.

[Seul]

I don't think people applying for FVC will only vote 10 times, i'm going to safely assume the people that are applying genuinely want to be active voters. Otherwise they wouldn't apply, the main thing is to ensure the people that are chosen for FVC are people that are on daily & consistently.

[Seul]

I don't think people applying for FVC will only vote 10 times, i'm going to safely assume the people that are applying genuinely want to be active voters. Otherwise they wouldn't apply, the main thing is to ensure the people that are chosen for FVC are people that are on daily & consistently.

[EtH]

I don't mean this in any way to detract from anything else, just my insight.

As for quality Vs quantity, quality is something we all pretend is the most important factor. If I get 5 great votes on my battle, I'm not as happy as I am with 15 shit votes. Quantity is hugely important. It adds a feeling that people have read the battle and as someone who writes more "entertainment" verses, the idea that people enjoyed my verses whether or not they gave an amazing breakdown is great and motivates me to continue.

Also on this point, I'm a real "quality" voter. I read it once (because yous who say you read it 5 times are talking shite) but when I do I give valid reasoning and indepth breakdowns of what I thought (pre this week). That takes time. That is a lot of typing, especially on a phone, that honestly makes me get away from voting. I'm voting less because of quality is the summary of that.

This isn't meant with any real point, just a perspective that I think people pretend doesnt exist.

Since this is a voting thread, I want to shoutout Kiwi Peewee. On my battle with Lock, I tried something very left field. I wrote a compliments verse that was actually a sarcastic insults verse. This was a concept I thought was very different and enjoyed trying. I was happy with almost every vote, and was actually surprised at the positivity, but in reading Kiwi's vote and how he completely understood that the verse itself was a concept, rather than just individual lines, it was motivating for me to be like "Nice one even when I try something new and different, this guy gets it". He voted against me if that helps the disclosure haha.

I think there will always be a balance, but the guys writing barely a paragraph as a vote make up the bulk of voters and I want 10+ votes on my battles no matter what the vote is.

[EtH]

I don't mean this in any way to detract from anything else, just my insight.

As for quality Vs quantity, quality is something we all pretend is the most important factor. If I get 5 great votes on my battle, I'm not as happy as I am with 15 shit votes. Quantity is hugely important. It adds a feeling that people have read the battle and as someone who writes more "entertainment" verses, the idea that people enjoyed my verses whether or not they gave an amazing breakdown is great and motivates me to continue.

Also on this point, I'm a real "quality" voter. I read it once (because yous who say you read it 5 times are talking shite) but when I do I give valid reasoning and indepth breakdowns of what I thought (pre this week). That takes time. That is a lot of typing, especially on a phone, that honestly makes me get away from voting. I'm voting less because of quality is the summary of that.

This isn't meant with any real point, just a perspective that I think people pretend doesnt exist.

Since this is a voting thread, I want to shoutout Kiwi Peewee. On my battle with Lock, I tried something very left field. I wrote a compliments verse that was actually a sarcastic insults verse. This was a concept I thought was very different and enjoyed trying. I was happy with almost every vote, and was actually surprised at the positivity, but in reading Kiwi's vote and how he completely understood that the verse itself was a concept, rather than just individual lines, it was motivating for me to be like "Nice one even when I try something new and different, this guy gets it". He voted against me if that helps the disclosure haha.

I think there will always be a balance, but the guys writing barely a paragraph as a vote make up the bulk of voters and I want 10+ votes on my battles no matter what the vote is.

[Edgeworth]

RE: EtH: I agree that it’s nice to have votes arrive on your battle in that large quantity, but that’s not the main point of the FVC itself. The scenario you described and the existence of an FVC containing reputable, and say even only “averagely active” voters, are not mutually exclusive.

[Edgeworth]

RE: EtH: I agree that it’s nice to have votes arrive on your battle in that large quantity, but that’s not the main point of the FVC itself. The scenario you described and the existence of an FVC containing reputable, and say even only “averagely active” voters, are not mutually exclusive.

[Seul]

The quota of 30 votes in a month isn't even hard. Times that by FVC members + regular votes... i think there will be an uptick in votes, if someone is applying for FVC and not planning to vote ONCE a day, then they shouldn't apply. I agree with the OPs comment that you dont need a paragraph long vote for it to be of quality, I think we are treating the quality or quantity stand point as if they are different entities, the FVC members should be able to recognize strengths and weaknesses in a verse quickly and be able to summarize them properly without spending too much time on it.

[Seul]

The quota of 30 votes in a month isn't even hard. Times that by FVC members + regular votes... i think there will be an uptick in votes, if someone is applying for FVC and not planning to vote ONCE a day, then they shouldn't apply. I agree with the OPs comment that you dont need a paragraph long vote for it to be of quality, I think we are treating the quality or quantity stand point as if they are different entities, the FVC members should be able to recognize strengths and weaknesses in a verse quickly and be able to summarize them properly without spending too much time on it.

[Brayne Ded]

Originally Posted by Seul

The quota of 30 votes in a month isn't even hard. Times that by FVC members + regular votes... i think there will be an uptick in votes, if someone is applying for FVC and not planning to vote ONCE a day, then they shouldn't apply. I agree with the OPs comment that you dont need a paragraph long vote for it to be of quality, I think we are treating the quality or quantity stand point as if they are different entities, the FVC members should be able to recognize strengths and weaknesses in a verse quickly and be able to summarize them properly without spending too much time on it.

As of December 7th, the FVC was 60 votes a month now. 30 audio and 30 text. Still not an unreasonable amount of votes.

https://www.letsbeef.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168531

[Brayne Ded]

Originally Posted by Seul

The quota of 30 votes in a month isn't even hard. Times that by FVC members + regular votes... i think there will be an uptick in votes, if someone is applying for FVC and not planning to vote ONCE a day, then they shouldn't apply. I agree with the OPs comment that you dont need a paragraph long vote for it to be of quality, I think we are treating the quality or quantity stand point as if they are different entities, the FVC members should be able to recognize strengths and weaknesses in a verse quickly and be able to summarize them properly without spending too much time on it.

As of December 7th, the FVC was 60 votes a month now. 30 audio and 30 text. Still not an unreasonable amount of votes.

https://www.letsbeef.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168531

[EtH]

Originally Posted by Sabu

RE: EtH: I agree that it’s nice to have votes arrive on your battle in that large quantity, but that’s not the main point of the FVC itself. The scenario you described and the existence of an FVC containing reputable, and say even only “averagely active” voters, are not mutually exclusive.

I think the FVC focus should be on voting, not "quality voting". Recently LB has been incredible in voting compared to just one month ago. Battles are unanimously closed on time, but if this stops being the case then having a couple of dope FVC votes on your big time battle isn't helping KingVA Vs Newb1 which has 1 vote after 6 days.

[EtH]

Originally Posted by Sabu

RE: EtH: I agree that it’s nice to have votes arrive on your battle in that large quantity, but that’s not the main point of the FVC itself. The scenario you described and the existence of an FVC containing reputable, and say even only “averagely active” voters, are not mutually exclusive.

I think the FVC focus should be on voting, not "quality voting". Recently LB has been incredible in voting compared to just one month ago. Battles are unanimously closed on time, but if this stops being the case then having a couple of dope FVC votes on your big time battle isn't helping KingVA Vs Newb1 which has 1 vote after 6 days.