FANDOM


  • Meta07
    Meta07 closed this thread because:
    See reason on last post.
    16:18, August 13, 2014

    Simple: What do you think should be this month's Featured Conception? Please vote below. You can freely nominate a conception and if it gets the most vote out of all the nominated conceptions (the nomination itself counts as one vote), then I'll pick it as the Featured Conception on the homepage after 3 days. There'll be a new thread like this every month (in order to re-highlight the thread), and JOKE CONCEPTIONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR NOMINATING. Thank you very much for participating.

    Koufuku Metanana 16:42, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

      Loading editor
    • You can de-higlight and highlight again.

        Loading editor
    • I have an idea: we choose a few conceptions, and make the site choose a random one for each computer, with the choose and option tags.

        Loading editor
    • And a reminder: you'll need the community to vote for a new poll (If it's a voting process.)

        Loading editor
    • Can I use one of my j- Nvm. *Walks away sadly*

        Loading editor
    • @IBT Ah, ok then... Didn't know it works (sorry, I'm stupid on Wikia's technical stuff). I still think a dedicated thread for each month is better though, if I'm persistent enough for it, since it won't cause any confusion and older threads can be treated as archives.

      @Anonymoustyd GREAT IDEA! We still have to go on with the voting that way though, and I'll have to leave that function to you or Logo-sama since I don't know how it works XP (again, like I said, I'm stupid with these stuffs). Alrighty then, how about 3 conceptions max? Oh, and the polls are privately decided by the CMs circle (and maybe some other users who decide to help out if they are present on chat at the time), it's not a public thing since it's hard to vote for a poll as well as its questions.

        Loading editor
    • Making that function may involve simple (clock-based, pseudo not random at all), or advanced (Lua-based, pseudo-random) stuff. So why not. :3

      Btw, come back to hcat

      Though I don't know about any "tags" called choose an option...

        Loading editor
    • IS my special mission enough good? It's called weakness attack.

        Loading editor
    • BJPvZFan9001 wrote:
      IS my special mission enough good? It's called weakness attack.

      Well... no. Sorry.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • No, too new.

        Loading editor
    • Doue wrote:
      No, too new.

      But it doesn't have a milk mmustache!, oh wait, I meant fish!

        Loading editor
    • Tierakh wrote:

      But it doesn't have a milk mmustache!, oh wait, I meant fish! </div>

      Srsly, it's way too new

        Loading editor
    • Doue wrote: Srsly, it's way too new

      It's one of my better pages >->

        Loading editor
    • And yes, I am openly admitting that some of my conceptions aren't that good... unlike some people that I know IRL... *ahem* guy who always says he's so awesome even though he isn't *cough*

        Loading editor
    • Doue wrote:
      H.A.R.P.O.O.N.

      + Support

        Loading editor
    • Logologologol wrote: Making that function may involve simple (clock-based, pseudo not random at all), or advanced (Lua-based, pseudo-random) stuff. So why not. :3

      Btw, come back to hcat

      Though I don't know about any "tags" called choose an option...

      That isn't random. I meant something like:

      <choose>
      <option>1st conception</option>
      <option>2nd conception</option>
      <option>3rd conception</option>
      </choose>
      
        Loading editor
    • + Support for H.A.R.P.O.O.N.

      Also, I nominate Grenadier Monkey by LoverofAllThingsCute.

      (Since we've decided to do 3 conceptions, you can vote/nominate for 3 conceptions at most.

        Loading editor
    • 1st conception
      
        Loading editor
    • Doue wrote:
      3rd conception

      Woah, it works! Kinda.

        Loading editor
    • ?

        Loading editor
    • Oh... Just saying, I would have nominated PSI Monkeys but it was unfinished...

        Loading editor
    • Anonymoustyd wrote:

      Logologologol wrote: Making that function may involve simple (clock-based, pseudo not random at all), or advanced (Lua-based, pseudo-random) stuff. So why not. :3

      Btw, come back to hcat

      Though I don't know about any "tags" called choose an option...

      That isn't random. I meant something like:

      <choose>
      <option>1st conception</option>
      <option>2nd conception</option>
      <option>3rd conception</option>
      </choose>
      

      Oh, we have a preexisting feature. Thanks for letting me know

        Loading editor
    • Infestor

      Would that do it?

        Loading editor
    • + Support to grenadier.

        Loading editor
    • + Support to Harpoon.

        Loading editor
    • + Support Grenadier.

        Loading editor
    • B.A.B

        Loading editor
    • make da link to da page.

        Loading editor
    • The voting system is so poorly laid out. I dunt even know what's happening at this point.

        Loading editor
    • Ok.

      H.A.R.P.O.O.N.: 5 votes

      Great Breaker V1: 1 vote

      Grenaider: 3 votes

      Probably gonna be H.A.R.P.O.O.N.

        Loading editor
    • + Slateport to H.A.R.P.O.O.N.. Just because of the pic (I mostly ignore the conception itself and see only the pic).

        Loading editor
    • Dude that's invalid. That's like making an empty page with only a pretty pic.

        Loading editor
    • ItsBloonTasty wrote:
      Dude that's invalid. That's like making an empty page with only a pretty pic.

      Yeah. NOTICE MY CONCEPTION ITSELF PEOPLE!

        Loading editor
    • Changed. @Doue I read it, I just didn't vote for it.

        Loading editor
    • Tierakh wrote:
      Ok.

      H.A.R.P.O.O.N.: 4 votes

      Great Breaker V1: 1 vote

      Grenaider: 3 votes

      Great Breaker V1 vote is invalid. Author votes DOESN'T count, and also, way too new.

        Loading editor
    • Support for H.A.R.P.O.O.N. because it has a ZOMG HP, BUT it has a TOUGH shield, and WITH AD! + ORIGINAL STATUS EFFECT! AND TWO FRIGGIN' INSTA-KILL ABILITIES! Being one only used when it's going to die. THIS IS SURELY A BOSS!!!!

        Loading editor
    • PlantShielder wrote:
      Support for H.A.R.P.O.O.N. because it has a ZOMG HP, BUT it has a TOUGH shield, and WITH AD! + ORIGINAL STATUS EFFECT! AND TWO FRIGGIN' INSTA-KILL ABILITIES! Being one only used when it's going to die. THIS IS SURELY A BOSS!!!!

      2 Insta-kill abilities? 

      Also, the one used when it's gonna die is eating fish

        Loading editor
    • PlantShielder wrote: Support for H.A.R.P.O.O.N. because it has a ZOMG HP, BUT it has a TOUGH shield, and WITH AD! + ORIGINAL STATUS EFFECT! AND TWO FRIGGIN' INSTA-KILL ABILITIES! Being one only used when it's going to die. THIS IS SURELY A BOSS!!!!

      Though that sounds like Oppose, but updating...

        Loading editor
    • PlantShielder wrote:

      Tierakh wrote:
      Ok.

      H.A.R.P.O.O.N.: 4 votes

      Great Breaker V1: 1 vote

      Grenaider: 3 votes

      Great Breaker V1 vote is invalid. Author votes DOESN'T count, and also, way too new.

      Meta said that the nomination counts as one vote.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Wy too new? Unfair. Imagine if someone made a 10/10 page right now. I think I'm clear.

        Loading editor
    • I'm getting confused? Are you defending or attacking the Great Breaker V1?

        Loading editor
    • ItsBloonTasty:

      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.

      The same could be said about one conception being featured. And this brings up a question: when does this round of voting end?

      Random choice? Unfair. There can be 3 conceptions, one of them has way less supporting (so it's bad) and still get nominated.

      We're not choosing random ones from here, we're choosing the top three to show at a random on the main page. If there's a tie, we'll most likely vote elimination style until we get three.

        Loading editor
    • Anonymoustyd wrote:

      ItsBloonTasty:

      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.

      The same could be said about one conception being featured. And this brings up a question: when does this round of voting end?

      Random choice? Unfair. There can be 3 conceptions, one of them has way less supporting (so it's bad) and still get nominated.

      We're not choosing random ones from here, we're choosing the top three to show at a random on the main page. If there's a tie, we'll most likely vote elimination style until we get three.

      Oh, I get it. A random conception shows up every time!

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Okay guys. Gather up all the nominations, have a quick vote, whatever. Let's get this over with.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

      Get over it already! Get 8 or whatever conceptions, AND HAVE THE FREAKIN' VOTING! 

        Loading editor
    • ARGH QUOTE PYRAMIDS! IT HURTS MY EYES!

        Loading editor
    • Tierakh wrote:

      PlantShielder wrote: Support for H.A.R.P.O.O.N. because it has a ZOMG HP, BUT it has a TOUGH shield, and WITH AD! + ORIGINAL STATUS EFFECT! AND TWO FRIGGIN' INSTA-KILL ABILITIES! Being one only used when it's going to die. THIS IS SURELY A BOSS!!!!

      Though that sounds like Oppose, but updating...

      I'm supporting because SOMETIMES like difficult ~_~

        Loading editor
    • SirBardock wrote:
      ARGH QUOTE PYRAMIDS! IT HURTS MY EYES!

      Deal with it because the quote pyramid won't be removed :P

        Loading editor
    • PlantShielder wrote:
      SirBardock wrote:
      ARGH QUOTE PYRAMIDS! IT HURTS MY EYES!
      Deal with it because the quote pyramid won't be removed :P

      The big one seems more like a quote ramp rather than a pyramid.

        Loading editor
    • Get back on topic. All the above could be said about one conception, which was the original idea. It's kinda like saying we shouldn't have the featured section at all. Feel free to object to whatever doesn't seem right, whether it be voting or quote pyramids, but create a new thread (or blog).

        Loading editor
    • I'd personally rather it be on a blog rather than a thread, it just seems less of a mess.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • -_- can we stop now id like to get back to voting it you wouldnt mind so please con we stop?

        Loading editor
    • Tierakh wrote:
      -_- can we stop now id like to get back to voting it you wouldnt mind so please con we stop?
        Loading editor
    • LoverofAllThingsCute wrote:
      Tierakh wrote:
      -_- can we stop now id like to get back to voting it you wouldnt mind so please con we stop?

      even though I don't participate in this voting.

        Loading editor
    • ..........

      I'd like you to care about the featured conceptions more than "fairness" and arguments, please.

      You see, while I can't dismiss Tasty's and Hypno's arguments, Logo is right: If you want things done, then nominate more so we have our "conceptions bank" to choose from, don't just sit there talking back. About the "first comes first served" thing. OF COURSE it has to happen when you don't nominate, because those conceptions are not the ones who come "first", they are the ONLY one who came, so I have no choice but to pick them.

      Extending the selected lot from 3 to 8 or 10 doesn't make anything more fair or easier, in fact it'll only make things way more complicated, since we have to nominate even more and pick even more. That's why I initially went with only one conception, but afterwards extended to 3 because I thought the random thing was cool.

      If you want it to be fair without people nominating actively, here's what we're gonna do: dump all the 500 something "decent" conceptions in. See? This is why we have this voting and nomination in the first place. Why I can't dismiss your argument and must admit my system is flawed, doing that will only make things even worse. The first Conception Tournaments were easy because at the time the number of conceptions in the wiki was small, so we can just dump everything in and the number of conceptions will roughly match the number of contestants we want, but it's not the case here.

      So, I've decided to POSTPONE THIS VOTING WHILE WE AMEND THE SYSTEM and CLEAR ALL THE RESULTS SO FAR. I'll also EXTEND THE VOTING PERIOD TO ONE WEEK NEXT TIME and make it so that YOU CAN ONLY START VOTING AFTER AT LEAST 10 CONCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN NOMINATED. At least, that's my current suggestion. If you have any idea, please let me know.

      And thus, I hereby decide that THIS THREAD IS CLOSED!

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.