Should non-staff members be able to have 3+ VP? - Page 5 - Lets Beef

**Babylon** · #1 11-30-2017, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleu

Voting power should be based on ones ability to assess a battle objectively / accurately as well as their battling prowess as I've said many of times. Yes, some staff don't deserve 4 VP, I've repeated time and time again as well.

This made me think, what are the parameters around how exactly a regular members VP gets lowered anyways? Is it just a manual thing? I know there are some abysmal voters with 0 vp, but I'd like to know how we go about discerning how one is deserving of that?

also side-note to any mod is X still responsive enough for these talks to result in any changes according to the majority opinion? just wondering

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSKAR

I have lowered my vp to 2 anyway.. fuck the system

**Babylon** · 11-30-2017, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleu

Voting power should be based on ones ability to assess a battle objectively / accurately as well as their battling prowess as I've said many of times. Yes, some staff don't deserve 4 VP, I've repeated time and time again as well.

This made me think, what are the parameters around how exactly a regular members VP gets lowered anyways? Is it just a manual thing? I know there are some abysmal voters with 0 vp, but I'd like to know how we go about discerning how one is deserving of that?

also side-note to any mod is X still responsive enough for these talks to result in any changes according to the majority opinion? just wondering

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSKAR

I have lowered my vp to 2 anyway.. fuck the system

**ILLoKWENT** · #2 11-30-2017, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon

This made me think, what are the parameters around how exactly a regular members VP gets lowered anyways? Is it just a manual thing? I know there are some abysmal voters with 0 vp, but I'd like to know how we go about discerning how one is deserving of that?

also side-note to any mod is X still responsive enough for these talks to result in any changes according to the majority opinion? just wondering

u been here for a while, how do u not know why a person's vp gets lowered?think about the most obvious reason we would lower a person's vp ,then you just answered your question

**ILLoKWENT** · 11-30-2017, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon

This made me think, what are the parameters around how exactly a regular members VP gets lowered anyways? Is it just a manual thing? I know there are some abysmal voters with 0 vp, but I'd like to know how we go about discerning how one is deserving of that?

also side-note to any mod is X still responsive enough for these talks to result in any changes according to the majority opinion? just wondering

u been here for a while, how do u not know why a person's vp gets lowered?think about the most obvious reason we would lower a person's vp ,then you just answered your question

#3 11-30-2017, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

u been here for a while, how do u not know why a person's vp gets lowered?think about the most obvious reason we would lower a person's vp ,then you just answered your question

He's asking how, not why. You ignorant fuckwit. No wonder you can't write. You have the reading comprehension of a retarded chimp with shaken baby syndrome.

11-30-2017, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

u been here for a while, how do u not know why a person's vp gets lowered?think about the most obvious reason we would lower a person's vp ,then you just answered your question

He's asking how, not why. You ignorant fuckwit. No wonder you can't write. You have the reading comprehension of a retarded chimp with shaken baby syndrome.

**ILLoKWENT** · #4 11-30-2017, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rant

He's asking how, not why. You ignorant fuckwit. No wonder you can't write. You have the reading comprehension of a retarded chimp with shaken baby syndrome.

You are a complete idiot.. he asked how we determine on whether to lower someone's vp. Which is pretty much the same thing as why we lower it.

**ILLoKWENT** · 11-30-2017, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rant

He's asking how, not why. You ignorant fuckwit. No wonder you can't write. You have the reading comprehension of a retarded chimp with shaken baby syndrome.

You are a complete idiot.. he asked how we determine on whether to lower someone's vp. Which is pretty much the same thing as why we lower it.

**NOBLE** · #5 11-30-2017, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon

This made me think, what are the parameters around how exactly a regular members VP gets lowered anyways? Is it just a manual thing? I know there are some abysmal voters with 0 vp, but I'd like to know how we go about discerning how one is deserving of that?

also side-note to any mod is X still responsive enough for these talks to result in any changes according to the majority opinion? just wondering

It's been pretty much arbitrary, based on individual perception. Someone could've seen one vote of yours that they think is shitty and decide to lower your vp based on that and it pretty much stays that way until you're lucky enough to have another mod who sees you've been voting consistently well who decides to raise it. It's much easier to get your vp lowered than to have it raised.
One of the coding changes I had always pushed for, and which they finally implemented, was for mods to be able to see a user's voting history. That way, at least they have the tool to systematically comb through a user's voting pattern as opposed to making decisions based on only one or a few that they happened to have come across. Someone can drop one shitty vote and not necessarily be an overall bad voter who deserves to have their vp lowered. A decision like that should be based on having looked at multiple battles where the person voted.

**NOBLE** · 11-30-2017, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon

This made me think, what are the parameters around how exactly a regular members VP gets lowered anyways? Is it just a manual thing? I know there are some abysmal voters with 0 vp, but I'd like to know how we go about discerning how one is deserving of that?

also side-note to any mod is X still responsive enough for these talks to result in any changes according to the majority opinion? just wondering

It's been pretty much arbitrary, based on individual perception. Someone could've seen one vote of yours that they think is shitty and decide to lower your vp based on that and it pretty much stays that way until you're lucky enough to have another mod who sees you've been voting consistently well who decides to raise it. It's much easier to get your vp lowered than to have it raised.
One of the coding changes I had always pushed for, and which they finally implemented, was for mods to be able to see a user's voting history. That way, at least they have the tool to systematically comb through a user's voting pattern as opposed to making decisions based on only one or a few that they happened to have come across. Someone can drop one shitty vote and not necessarily be an overall bad voter who deserves to have their vp lowered. A decision like that should be based on having looked at multiple battles where the person voted.

**NOBLE** · #6 11-30-2017, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleu

Voting power should be based on ones ability to assess a battle objectively / accurately as well as their battling prowess as I've said many of times. Yes, some staff don't deserve 4 VP, I've repeated time and time again as well.

I'd have to disagree with some parts of this. How well someone votes has almost nothing to do with their battling prowess. Is how good someone's taste in Hip Hop is based on how well they, personally, can rap? Also, how "objectively" can one assess a battle, when at the end of the day it's all based on personal taste? Who gets to determine who is assessing a battle accurately, and how will they reach that determination? Two people can both understand flow and complexity but prioritize them differently when judging a battle. It doesn't make one wrong or the other right.
The problem we've had in the past is some mods (I'm not saying you, but they held a similar view) pretty much thought that if you didn't agree with them on a battle, you are a shitty voter, and they seemed to justify that based on the fact that other people ranked them as among the best battlers. Before I became a mod, one mod lowered my vp based on one tourney battle because I voted for GrizzEAT and everyone who also voted for Grizz on the same battle also had their vp lowered on the same day.
The best clue as to whether someone is a "good" voter or not is how well they explain their decision, not whether or not they agree with you. By saying that, I'm not saying someone can't be a good voter without a well-written expo either. What I'm saying is someone can be"wrong" because they picked a different winner than you on a battle but their expo can let you know that they just have a different taste or place a different emphasis on certain things rather than them being a shitty voter.

**NOBLE** · 11-30-2017, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleu

Voting power should be based on ones ability to assess a battle objectively / accurately as well as their battling prowess as I've said many of times. Yes, some staff don't deserve 4 VP, I've repeated time and time again as well.

I'd have to disagree with some parts of this. How well someone votes has almost nothing to do with their battling prowess. Is how good someone's taste in Hip Hop is based on how well they, personally, can rap? Also, how "objectively" can one assess a battle, when at the end of the day it's all based on personal taste? Who gets to determine who is assessing a battle accurately, and how will they reach that determination? Two people can both understand flow and complexity but prioritize them differently when judging a battle. It doesn't make one wrong or the other right.
The problem we've had in the past is some mods (I'm not saying you, but they held a similar view) pretty much thought that if you didn't agree with them on a battle, you are a shitty voter, and they seemed to justify that based on the fact that other people ranked them as among the best battlers. Before I became a mod, one mod lowered my vp based on one tourney battle because I voted for GrizzEAT and everyone who also voted for Grizz on the same battle also had their vp lowered on the same day.
The best clue as to whether someone is a "good" voter or not is how well they explain their decision, not whether or not they agree with you. By saying that, I'm not saying someone can't be a good voter without a well-written expo either. What I'm saying is someone can be"wrong" because they picked a different winner than you on a battle but their expo can let you know that they just have a different taste or place a different emphasis on certain things rather than them being a shitty voter.

**MaCc Da G0D** · #7 11-29-2017, 06:56 PM

....Not To Throw In a Monkey Wrench But Why All This Bickering About Mod VP anyway? The Only Two Mods That Vote Are Nick And Aggo. I Haven't See Any Other Green Names On the Left Panel In An Abundance and I ALWAYS see Mods Online. I've Messaged Many Mods For Various Reasons Needing their Help and I Can Count On One Hand The Responses That I Have Received. There Isn't That Much 'Busy' On LB at All... So Someone Give Me a Reason For The Lack Of MOD activity....

PS. Simply... (0-3) makes the Most Sense for the Voting Scale. 0 for Bad Voters, 1 for Inconsistently Positive Voters, 2 For the Majority Of Decent, Slightly Expo'd and Fair Voters and 3 for Mods and Great Voters. Admins Could Have a 4 VP power, who would Even Care? They Never Vote Anyway...

**MaCc Da G0D** · 11-29-2017, 06:56 PM

....Not To Throw In a Monkey Wrench But Why All This Bickering About Mod VP anyway? The Only Two Mods That Vote Are Nick And Aggo. I Haven't See Any Other Green Names On the Left Panel In An Abundance and I ALWAYS see Mods Online. I've Messaged Many Mods For Various Reasons Needing their Help and I Can Count On One Hand The Responses That I Have Received. There Isn't That Much 'Busy' On LB at All... So Someone Give Me a Reason For The Lack Of MOD activity....

PS. Simply... (0-3) makes the Most Sense for the Voting Scale. 0 for Bad Voters, 1 for Inconsistently Positive Voters, 2 For the Majority Of Decent, Slightly Expo'd and Fair Voters and 3 for Mods and Great Voters. Admins Could Have a 4 VP power, who would Even Care? They Never Vote Anyway...

**NOBLE** · #8 11-30-2017, 10:33 AM

The traditional reason why mods need to have higher vp is to help close battles.
For example, when someone has been found voting for themselves with a multi account, the latest policy is to remove all votes for that person and assign an auto-win to their opponent---all votes except the one from the actual multi-account.
The reason why we (I'll use "we" even though I'm not currently staff) don't remove the vote from the multi-account is so it remains in the system when a mod checks for multiple accounts and self-voting on a user's page. If the vote is removed, which seems the obvious thing to do, evidence is also erased from that log.
If it happens to be a low vote battle, one with only 2 or 3 votes, for example, and the multi-account vote is the only one left and is going for the offender, a mod's vote has to outweigh the multi-account's vp in order to help the battle close faster. The system will not close a battle that has equal vp count and it usually will not close a battle that has less than 3 votes. But if a battle is already older than 3 days, even with just two votes and as long as there is more vp on one side than the other, it can be re-ranked and closed.
With that being said, there is no reason why we can't lower mod vp to be the same as everyone else's and simply have more than one mod show up to vote on an auto-win battle to close the battle....or even to get other users to come vote. However, that sometimes works better in theory than in practice. A lot of mods are very inactive, especially when it comes to voting....So getting them to vote might be a monumental task. I don't agree that there's not enough activity for the staff. Voting itself is an activity, and votes are always needed.

**NOBLE** · 11-30-2017, 10:33 AM

The traditional reason why mods need to have higher vp is to help close battles.
For example, when someone has been found voting for themselves with a multi account, the latest policy is to remove all votes for that person and assign an auto-win to their opponent---all votes except the one from the actual multi-account.
The reason why we (I'll use "we" even though I'm not currently staff) don't remove the vote from the multi-account is so it remains in the system when a mod checks for multiple accounts and self-voting on a user's page. If the vote is removed, which seems the obvious thing to do, evidence is also erased from that log.
If it happens to be a low vote battle, one with only 2 or 3 votes, for example, and the multi-account vote is the only one left and is going for the offender, a mod's vote has to outweigh the multi-account's vp in order to help the battle close faster. The system will not close a battle that has equal vp count and it usually will not close a battle that has less than 3 votes. But if a battle is already older than 3 days, even with just two votes and as long as there is more vp on one side than the other, it can be re-ranked and closed.
With that being said, there is no reason why we can't lower mod vp to be the same as everyone else's and simply have more than one mod show up to vote on an auto-win battle to close the battle....or even to get other users to come vote. However, that sometimes works better in theory than in practice. A lot of mods are very inactive, especially when it comes to voting....So getting them to vote might be a monumental task. I don't agree that there's not enough activity for the staff. Voting itself is an activity, and votes are always needed.