FAIR VOTERS CLUB DISCUSSION

[Barzooka]

Originally Posted by Row

We dont even need fvc, if mods voted more consistently.

Which they, unfortunately, don't due to life circumstances. Therefore, the FVC is our solution.

[Barzooka]

Originally Posted by Row

We dont even need fvc, if mods voted more consistently.

Which they, unfortunately, don't due to life circumstances. Therefore, the FVC is our solution.

[Edgeworth]

@guts. @HVK

Id like to add some feedback to this discussion.

While a seemingly good idea, here’s my issue with this premise. There literally aren’t that many more active, educated, unbiased voters on the site that aren’t FVC already. I can name a couple, sure, but I don’t think the pool of people is there to expand expand and expand. We don’t want to sacrifice the quality of the FVC votes just to put a couple more people in the club. For instance, I can’t think of 3 people I’d definitely want to add right now.

Also, if you just put all the active voters in the FVC, what’s the point of the FVC? Then everyone will have it under their name and have the boosted VP. At that stage the value of an FVC vote diminishes greatly, as they’re just getting tossed around on the regular. FVC and the boosted VP that comes with it should be reserved for the most educated, fair, and unbiased voters. There is NOT a plethora of people that check all those boxes that aren’t already in the FVC.

You seem to want to expand the FVC to hit some imaginary quota of 2 FVC votes per battle. The thing is you pulled this quota out of thin air and it’s just a nice number you decided on. Nothing logically says this is a good or optimal number. ALSO, that’s reltaively achievable with our current base. Sure, some troll battles, snipe battles and battles from guys that drop 6x a day might not get 2 FVC votes, but most battles get that or more.

I’m not completely against adding people to the FVC, but the idea that rapidly and vastly expanding its member base is somehow the best thing to do “just because”, sounds awful to me.

[Edgeworth]

@guts. @HVK

Id like to add some feedback to this discussion.

While a seemingly good idea, here’s my issue with this premise. There literally aren’t that many more active, educated, unbiased voters on the site that aren’t FVC already. I can name a couple, sure, but I don’t think the pool of people is there to expand expand and expand. We don’t want to sacrifice the quality of the FVC votes just to put a couple more people in the club. For instance, I can’t think of 3 people I’d definitely want to add right now.

Also, if you just put all the active voters in the FVC, what’s the point of the FVC? Then everyone will have it under their name and have the boosted VP. At that stage the value of an FVC vote diminishes greatly, as they’re just getting tossed around on the regular. FVC and the boosted VP that comes with it should be reserved for the most educated, fair, and unbiased voters. There is NOT a plethora of people that check all those boxes that aren’t already in the FVC.

You seem to want to expand the FVC to hit some imaginary quota of 2 FVC votes per battle. The thing is you pulled this quota out of thin air and it’s just a nice number you decided on. Nothing logically says this is a good or optimal number. ALSO, that’s reltaively achievable with our current base. Sure, some troll battles, snipe battles and battles from guys that drop 6x a day might not get 2 FVC votes, but most battles get that or more.

I’m not completely against adding people to the FVC, but the idea that rapidly and vastly expanding its member base is somehow the best thing to do “just because”, sounds awful to me.

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

@guts. @HVK

Id like to add some feedback to this discussion.

While a seemingly good idea, here’s my issue with this premise. There literally aren’t that many more active, educated, unbiased voters on the site that aren’t FVC already. I can name a couple, sure, but I don’t think the pool of people is there to expand expand and expand. We don’t want to sacrifice the quality of the FVC votes just to put a couple more people in the club. For instance, I can’t think of 3 people I’d definitely want to add right now.

Also, if you just put all the active voters in the FVC, what’s the point of the FVC? Then everyone will have it under their name and have the boosted VP. At that stage the value of an FVC vote diminishes greatly, as they’re just getting tossed around on the regular. FVC and the boosted VP that comes with it should be reserved for the most educated, fair, and unbiased voters. There is NOT a plethora of people that check all those boxes that aren’t already in the FVC.

You seem to want to expand the FVC to hit some imaginary quota of 2 FVC votes per battle. The thing is you pulled this quota out of thin air and it’s just a nice number you decided on. Nothing logically says this is a good or optimal number. ALSO, that’s reltaively achievable with our current base. Sure, some troll battles, snipe battles and battles from guys that drop 6x a day might not get 2 FVC votes, but most battles get that or more.

I’m not completely against adding people to the FVC, but the idea that rapidly and vastly expanding its member base is somehow the best thing to do “just because”, sounds awful to me.

This. It's supposed to be about quality, not quantity.

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

@guts. @HVK

Id like to add some feedback to this discussion.

While a seemingly good idea, here’s my issue with this premise. There literally aren’t that many more active, educated, unbiased voters on the site that aren’t FVC already. I can name a couple, sure, but I don’t think the pool of people is there to expand expand and expand. We don’t want to sacrifice the quality of the FVC votes just to put a couple more people in the club. For instance, I can’t think of 3 people I’d definitely want to add right now.

Also, if you just put all the active voters in the FVC, what’s the point of the FVC? Then everyone will have it under their name and have the boosted VP. At that stage the value of an FVC vote diminishes greatly, as they’re just getting tossed around on the regular. FVC and the boosted VP that comes with it should be reserved for the most educated, fair, and unbiased voters. There is NOT a plethora of people that check all those boxes that aren’t already in the FVC.

You seem to want to expand the FVC to hit some imaginary quota of 2 FVC votes per battle. The thing is you pulled this quota out of thin air and it’s just a nice number you decided on. Nothing logically says this is a good or optimal number. ALSO, that’s reltaively achievable with our current base. Sure, some troll battles, snipe battles and battles from guys that drop 6x a day might not get 2 FVC votes, but most battles get that or more.

I’m not completely against adding people to the FVC, but the idea that rapidly and vastly expanding its member base is somehow the best thing to do “just because”, sounds awful to me.

This. It's supposed to be about quality, not quantity.

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

@guts. @HVK

Id like to add some feedback to this discussion.

While a seemingly good idea, here’s my issue with this premise. There literally aren’t that many more active, educated, unbiased voters on the site that aren’t FVC already. I can name a couple, sure, but I don’t think the pool of people is there to expand expand and expand. We don’t want to sacrifice the quality of the FVC votes just to put a couple more people in the club. For instance, I can’t think of 3 people I’d definitely want to add right now.

Also, if you just put all the active voters in the FVC, what’s the point of the FVC? Then everyone will have it under their name and have the boosted VP. At that stage the value of an FVC vote diminishes greatly, as they’re just getting tossed around on the regular. FVC and the boosted VP that comes with it should be reserved for the most educated, fair, and unbiased voters. There is NOT a plethora of people that check all those boxes that aren’t already in the FVC.

You seem to want to expand the FVC to hit some imaginary quota of 2 FVC votes per battle. The thing is you pulled this quota out of thin air and it’s just a nice number you decided on. Nothing logically says this is a good or optimal number. ALSO, that’s reltaively achievable with our current base. Sure, some troll battles, snipe battles and battles from guys that drop 6x a day might not get 2 FVC votes, but most battles get that or more.

I’m not completely against adding people to the FVC, but the idea that rapidly and vastly expanding its member base is somehow the best thing to do “just because”, sounds awful to me.

first off, yes, i pulled the 2 # out of my ass but in a brief defense of myself, i'm not being precise or approaching this with exact mindset i'd take when building a business ya know what i mean? the reason why 2 *seemed* like a good idea is what happens if you only have 1 fvc vote, and then 4 other wack voters vote against you in a clear win? we've seen this happen so many time by now, so no, not every battle needs to have two votes, but damn, i think it would be hella nice if they did.

you an d several others mention quality over quantity, but for me this an easily dissmissible concept. 1.depending on your situation, you might need more of a lesser variety. let me give you an example. soup kitchens. it is more important to get whatever help you can whether than interview people and make sure they fit the glass slipper. another example: lb is in a bad way. hate voting and hate blocking is at a peak, people trading votes, shitty voters being the most active...it could be argued it's more important to get the help we need. 2.i've never once said we should sacrifice quality at all. we need more members, but that doesn't mean you should accept just anyone. the process would stay the same for accepting someone, the only change is you would take in a couple more heads.

it's kinda confusing that you don't want the extra help. but instead of going on, i'll actually take the time to nominate some people i find worthy.

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

@guts. @HVK

Id like to add some feedback to this discussion.

While a seemingly good idea, here’s my issue with this premise. There literally aren’t that many more active, educated, unbiased voters on the site that aren’t FVC already. I can name a couple, sure, but I don’t think the pool of people is there to expand expand and expand. We don’t want to sacrifice the quality of the FVC votes just to put a couple more people in the club. For instance, I can’t think of 3 people I’d definitely want to add right now.

Also, if you just put all the active voters in the FVC, what’s the point of the FVC? Then everyone will have it under their name and have the boosted VP. At that stage the value of an FVC vote diminishes greatly, as they’re just getting tossed around on the regular. FVC and the boosted VP that comes with it should be reserved for the most educated, fair, and unbiased voters. There is NOT a plethora of people that check all those boxes that aren’t already in the FVC.

You seem to want to expand the FVC to hit some imaginary quota of 2 FVC votes per battle. The thing is you pulled this quota out of thin air and it’s just a nice number you decided on. Nothing logically says this is a good or optimal number. ALSO, that’s reltaively achievable with our current base. Sure, some troll battles, snipe battles and battles from guys that drop 6x a day might not get 2 FVC votes, but most battles get that or more.

I’m not completely against adding people to the FVC, but the idea that rapidly and vastly expanding its member base is somehow the best thing to do “just because”, sounds awful to me.

first off, yes, i pulled the 2 # out of my ass but in a brief defense of myself, i'm not being precise or approaching this with exact mindset i'd take when building a business ya know what i mean? the reason why 2 *seemed* like a good idea is what happens if you only have 1 fvc vote, and then 4 other wack voters vote against you in a clear win? we've seen this happen so many time by now, so no, not every battle needs to have two votes, but damn, i think it would be hella nice if they did.

you an d several others mention quality over quantity, but for me this an easily dissmissible concept. 1.depending on your situation, you might need more of a lesser variety. let me give you an example. soup kitchens. it is more important to get whatever help you can whether than interview people and make sure they fit the glass slipper. another example: lb is in a bad way. hate voting and hate blocking is at a peak, people trading votes, shitty voters being the most active...it could be argued it's more important to get the help we need. 2.i've never once said we should sacrifice quality at all. we need more members, but that doesn't mean you should accept just anyone. the process would stay the same for accepting someone, the only change is you would take in a couple more heads.

it's kinda confusing that you don't want the extra help. but instead of going on, i'll actually take the time to nominate some people i find worthy.