FVC 2020 Discussion

[IAmFlow]

Originally Posted by REZN

I disagree with the bolded. New, and closing soon battles should be the priority. "Big" battles get a lot of votes as it is. But, people seldom want to vote on the battles they aren't interested in. And this is where the FVC is needed most.

I feel as though, there should be at least 3 FVC members voting on every battle with less than 3 votes from the new battles list, to ensure that they close. The same with the battles closing soon.

As, battles not closing on time is probably one of the biggest deterrents to activity. If a battler comes here to battle, and is subjected to their battle staying open for an extenuating period of time, with few votes, then what incentive is there for them to stay?

Thank you. This is exactly why I wanted everyone incite on everything so I can tailor and perfect the end game as much as possible. How do you feel about the rotation of the FVC members that should be focusing on that idea. That way a specific persons aren't always only responsible for that. I can also focus attention on those battles at any given time through IM, PM, and threads that encourage the members to go vote on those at any given time. So keep that in mind. I work from home, so this is something I can stay on top of.

As far as the tournaments/events. I do feel the FVC should be involved as much as possible in those. The FVC are supposed to be the respected voters held a tier above regular voters. They should have their input on the bigger battles.

[IAmFlow]

Originally Posted by REZN

I disagree with the bolded. New, and closing soon battles should be the priority. "Big" battles get a lot of votes as it is. But, people seldom want to vote on the battles they aren't interested in. And this is where the FVC is needed most.

I feel as though, there should be at least 3 FVC members voting on every battle with less than 3 votes from the new battles list, to ensure that they close. The same with the battles closing soon.

As, battles not closing on time is probably one of the biggest deterrents to activity. If a battler comes here to battle, and is subjected to their battle staying open for an extenuating period of time, with few votes, then what incentive is there for them to stay?

Thank you. This is exactly why I wanted everyone incite on everything so I can tailor and perfect the end game as much as possible. How do you feel about the rotation of the FVC members that should be focusing on that idea. That way a specific persons aren't always only responsible for that. I can also focus attention on those battles at any given time through IM, PM, and threads that encourage the members to go vote on those at any given time. So keep that in mind. I work from home, so this is something I can stay on top of.

As far as the tournaments/events. I do feel the FVC should be involved as much as possible in those. The FVC are supposed to be the respected voters held a tier above regular voters. They should have their input on the bigger battles.

[REZN]

Originally Posted by IAmFlow

Thank you. This is exactly why I wanted everyone incite on everything so I can tailor and perfect the end game as much as possible. How do you feel about the rotation of the FVC members that should be focusing on that idea. That way a specific persons aren't always only responsible for that. I can also focus attention on those battles at any given time through IM, PM, and threads that encourage the members to go vote on those at any given time. So keep that in mind. I work from home, so this is something I can stay on top of.

As far as the tournaments/events. I do feel the FVC should be involved as much as possible in those. The FVC are supposed to be the respected voters held a tier above regular voters. They should have their input on the bigger battles.

Rotating members to focus on the closing soon, and new battles is definitely a solid idea. I like that. But, in regard to tournament battles? Should they be involved in? Absolutely. But, prioritizing? I don't believe so. As stated, I believe that prioritization should be in those aforementioned areas. The strongest iteration of the FVC, in my opinion, was Noble's. And this is, in large, his idea. Making sure new battles get 5 votes to hotlist, and making sure that closing battles get 3 votes to close. Because those are the most important ways in which we as voters can incentivize continued activity. A new member hitting the hotlist is probably a cool feeling (It was for me when I was brand new.), and battles closing on time is a positive for everyone. It makes the closing soon list seem less cluttered, people get the results of their battles in a timely manner, and everyone's happy. (Unless they lose. Lol.)

If you check out Noble's thread about wanting to start Natural Selection, he highlights some of these ideas. Which I feel never should have been cut from the FVC in the first place. Because it was a system that worked, and a system that was beneficial to the site.

Voting in this way helps to foster activity, and helps to keep new members vested, and feel as though they're a part of the site who are getting attention on their material. Not only that, but, it helps those new members to get the feedback they need in order to better their approach to writing.

[REZN]

Originally Posted by IAmFlow

Thank you. This is exactly why I wanted everyone incite on everything so I can tailor and perfect the end game as much as possible. How do you feel about the rotation of the FVC members that should be focusing on that idea. That way a specific persons aren't always only responsible for that. I can also focus attention on those battles at any given time through IM, PM, and threads that encourage the members to go vote on those at any given time. So keep that in mind. I work from home, so this is something I can stay on top of.

As far as the tournaments/events. I do feel the FVC should be involved as much as possible in those. The FVC are supposed to be the respected voters held a tier above regular voters. They should have their input on the bigger battles.

Rotating members to focus on the closing soon, and new battles is definitely a solid idea. I like that. But, in regard to tournament battles? Should they be involved in? Absolutely. But, prioritizing? I don't believe so. As stated, I believe that prioritization should be in those aforementioned areas. The strongest iteration of the FVC, in my opinion, was Noble's. And this is, in large, his idea. Making sure new battles get 5 votes to hotlist, and making sure that closing battles get 3 votes to close. Because those are the most important ways in which we as voters can incentivize continued activity. A new member hitting the hotlist is probably a cool feeling (It was for me when I was brand new.), and battles closing on time is a positive for everyone. It makes the closing soon list seem less cluttered, people get the results of their battles in a timely manner, and everyone's happy. (Unless they lose. Lol.)

If you check out Noble's thread about wanting to start Natural Selection, he highlights some of these ideas. Which I feel never should have been cut from the FVC in the first place. Because it was a system that worked, and a system that was beneficial to the site.

Voting in this way helps to foster activity, and helps to keep new members vested, and feel as though they're a part of the site who are getting attention on their material. Not only that, but, it helps those new members to get the feedback they need in order to better their approach to writing.

[Q]

Originally Posted by REZN

I disagree with the bolded. New, and closing soon battles should be the priority. "Big" battles get a lot of votes as it is. But, people seldom want to vote on the battles they aren't interested in. And this is where the FVC is needed most.

I feel as though, there should be at least 3 FVC members voting on every battle with less than 3 votes from the new battles list, to ensure that they close. The same with the battles closing soon.

As, battles not closing on time is probably one of the biggest deterrents to activity. If a battler comes here to battle, and is subjected to their battle staying open for an extenuating period of time, with few votes, then what incentive is there for them to stay?

I agree with this.

@IAmFlow the rest of what you put up is dope though, know the FVC is in good hands with you at the reigns. When it’s back up and running i’ll be happy to take part in it.

[Q]

Originally Posted by REZN

I disagree with the bolded. New, and closing soon battles should be the priority. "Big" battles get a lot of votes as it is. But, people seldom want to vote on the battles they aren't interested in. And this is where the FVC is needed most.

I feel as though, there should be at least 3 FVC members voting on every battle with less than 3 votes from the new battles list, to ensure that they close. The same with the battles closing soon.

As, battles not closing on time is probably one of the biggest deterrents to activity. If a battler comes here to battle, and is subjected to their battle staying open for an extenuating period of time, with few votes, then what incentive is there for them to stay?

I agree with this.

@IAmFlow the rest of what you put up is dope though, know the FVC is in good hands with you at the reigns. When it’s back up and running i’ll be happy to take part in it.

[RULE]

I vote Wipe and Rebuild.

I love the idea that FVC is quality over quantity.

The NUMBER of votes is a site issues, the quality is a FVC issue.

I dig it all.

[RULE]

I vote Wipe and Rebuild.

I love the idea that FVC is quality over quantity.

The NUMBER of votes is a site issues, the quality is a FVC issue.

I dig it all.

I've left FVC forcnoe if the plan is to start from scratch. I'm up for re-joining this, though.
@RULE @IAmFlow

I've left FVC forcnoe if the plan is to start from scratch. I'm up for re-joining this, though.
@RULE @IAmFlow

[IAmFlow]

Originally Posted by REZN

Rotating members to focus on the closing soon, and new battles is definitely a solid idea. I like that. But, in regard to tournament battles? Should they be involved in? Absolutely. But, prioritizing? I don't believe so. As stated, I believe that prioritization should be in those aforementioned areas. The strongest iteration of the FVC, in my opinion, was Noble's. And this is, in large, his idea. Making sure new battles get 5 votes to hotlist, and making sure that closing battles get 3 votes to close. Because those are the most important ways in which we as voters can incentivize continued activity. A new member hitting the hotlist is probably a cool feeling (It was for me when I was brand new.), and battles closing on time is a positive for everyone. It makes the closing soon list seem less cluttered, people get the results of their battles in a timely manner, and everyone's happy. (Unless they lose. Lol.)

If you check out Noble's thread about wanting to start Natural Selection, he highlights some of these ideas. Which I feel never should have been cut from the FVC in the first place. Because it was a system that worked, and a system that was beneficial to the site.

Voting in this way helps to foster activity, and helps to keep new members vested, and feel as though they're a part of the site who are getting attention on their material. Not only that, but, it helps those new members to get the feedback they need in order to better their approach to writing.

Since I've been here, I really haven't seen much of an issue with battles not closing. And these will also be including my votes as well on the stuff needed in terms of 3 to close. But I really like your incite on getting some of the newer members to the hotlist, I mean obviously if the battle has good enough ratings to get there. I don't think we should be falsely inflating ratings for it.

So I completely understand the perspective of not prioritizing the tournaments. This is something I can try to work in like the rotations and of course my own votes to make sure those battles are getting the recognition and feedback they need as well.

I will try to find nobles thread on that and see some of his ideas. @NOBLE pop in if you any added incite and ideas as well.

[IAmFlow]

Originally Posted by REZN

Rotating members to focus on the closing soon, and new battles is definitely a solid idea. I like that. But, in regard to tournament battles? Should they be involved in? Absolutely. But, prioritizing? I don't believe so. As stated, I believe that prioritization should be in those aforementioned areas. The strongest iteration of the FVC, in my opinion, was Noble's. And this is, in large, his idea. Making sure new battles get 5 votes to hotlist, and making sure that closing battles get 3 votes to close. Because those are the most important ways in which we as voters can incentivize continued activity. A new member hitting the hotlist is probably a cool feeling (It was for me when I was brand new.), and battles closing on time is a positive for everyone. It makes the closing soon list seem less cluttered, people get the results of their battles in a timely manner, and everyone's happy. (Unless they lose. Lol.)

If you check out Noble's thread about wanting to start Natural Selection, he highlights some of these ideas. Which I feel never should have been cut from the FVC in the first place. Because it was a system that worked, and a system that was beneficial to the site.

Voting in this way helps to foster activity, and helps to keep new members vested, and feel as though they're a part of the site who are getting attention on their material. Not only that, but, it helps those new members to get the feedback they need in order to better their approach to writing.

Since I've been here, I really haven't seen much of an issue with battles not closing. And these will also be including my votes as well on the stuff needed in terms of 3 to close. But I really like your incite on getting some of the newer members to the hotlist, I mean obviously if the battle has good enough ratings to get there. I don't think we should be falsely inflating ratings for it.

So I completely understand the perspective of not prioritizing the tournaments. This is something I can try to work in like the rotations and of course my own votes to make sure those battles are getting the recognition and feedback they need as well.

I will try to find nobles thread on that and see some of his ideas. @NOBLE pop in if you any added incite and ideas as well.

[IAmFlow]

@EtH
@Manhattan
@Celsius
@Punk
@Aggo
@Autograph
@GRizzEAT
@Subreal

What do you guys think?


as well as anyone else that pops in here.

[IAmFlow]

@EtH
@Manhattan
@Celsius
@Punk
@Aggo
@Autograph
@GRizzEAT
@Subreal

What do you guys think?


as well as anyone else that pops in here.

[Autograph]

Originally Posted by IAmFlow

@EtH
@Manhattan
@Celsius
@Punk
@Aggo
@Autograph
@GRizzEAT
@Subreal

What do you guys think?


as well as anyone else that pops in here.

Sorry for the late response. I think it’s a good idea. Letting the users vote for whom they wanna see as FVC members makes sense as long as it doesn’t turn into a popularity contest. There’s a few guys who are in the FVC currently that may be out voted by others guys. But all your ideas are valid. I think it’s a step in the right direction to get the club where it needs to be & I applaud your approach.

[Autograph]

Originally Posted by IAmFlow

@EtH
@Manhattan
@Celsius
@Punk
@Aggo
@Autograph
@GRizzEAT
@Subreal

What do you guys think?


as well as anyone else that pops in here.

Sorry for the late response. I think it’s a good idea. Letting the users vote for whom they wanna see as FVC members makes sense as long as it doesn’t turn into a popularity contest. There’s a few guys who are in the FVC currently that may be out voted by others guys. But all your ideas are valid. I think it’s a step in the right direction to get the club where it needs to be & I applaud your approach.

[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.

[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.

[Q]

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.

By golly i think he's cracked it. That's a fucking brilliant idea.

[Q]

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.

By golly i think he's cracked it. That's a fucking brilliant idea.