Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5294711-20140810164215/@comment-28857013-20140813060607

Hypno1337 wrote: Logologologol wrote:

Hypno1337 wrote:

Logologologol wrote:

ItsBloonTasty wrote: STOP THIS VOTING!!!!!!!

Most of you are just being unfair!

3 conception max? Unfair. What if there are many more good conceptions (which is sadly true)? Also, people  can just nominate 3 acceptable conceptions before the others choose better ones.

Random choice? Unfair. There can be 3 conceptions, one of them has way less supporting (so it's bad) and still get nominated. 3 conception max is unfair? Then how many do you actually want? 10? Unfair! What if we got more than that? 3000? Unfair! What's the difference between featured and random then? Any number you name, you can simply call it unfair. We just take a common number and make it to the system. Fairness here is just totally one's opinion.

Random choice is unfair? What are you talking about? If there were just three nominations, then it doesn't really matter what gets voted or what. If there were really a bad one, go ahead and nominate another. No need to rant unfairness. I agree with IBT entirely, and whilst you could argue that any number would be "still unfair", a number like 8 or 10 would be far less unfair whilst still giving a managable amount of things.

The random choice is a decent thing to some extent, but the way that this became a "first come first serve" cinda ruins that, (this has also been damaged by having ONLY 3 THINGS!

This whole vote has been badly laid out anyway, why was this not set up like a division from the 3rd conception tournament?! The way that was (supposed to go) was very easy to understand, it held 8 conceptions (a good number) and if someone were to just copy-paste one of the divisions into a new blog for this featuring (I suppose the conceptions would be changed), and then just let it go on from there it'd work. Oh, so you want 8-10 so that it is less unfair, but why? Why do you think a number called eight is less unfair than a number called three, or five? Why must it be a set number you give me? Mathematical result? Psychological theorem? And how are you sure that the eight-ish way you suggested doesn't make the "first come first serve" problem exist?

Now about the problem, this is why we let you nominate, it's not like "The first 3 nominations gets featured", and it's exactly why voting is needed. If you feel a need to get a indecent conception out, just nominate another. Why you have to keep ranting when you can just avoid the problem by that?

And again, "why was this not set up like a division from the 3rd conception tourney"? Why does it have to be that way? Yes we do have this system, but what that is is a long-period campaign, not a 3-day vote. Holding a mini-tourney for every monthly feature conception is not a good method. I see you quite have an interest, a bias on the number 8, but that doesn't actually fix anything. I could have argued back everything with IBT's point. 1. I suppose I should have elaborated a bit more, I chose the region of 8-10 because it gives more space for conceptions than 3, giving more options on what to vote for but there is still a managable amount of things to work with.

1. 8 (or a number near there) is better than three, whilst it doesn't remove the "first come first serve", and it doesn't hold every single good thing on the wiki, it helps.

2. I meant a number around the area of 8-10 not 8 or 10.

3. You're correct with "that doesn't actually fix anything." but it improves upon it. 1. 8-10 can be better than 3? All reasons you provided was just "because 8-10 is bigger so it is better than 3". We could have been firstly picking 1 then say we should use 3 because it can be holding more.

2. Bear with me. That makes no difference. (Argument-wise)

3. Read 1.