Originally posted by AncientPower
Nah, I've been singlehandedly handing three of your most hardcore brigadiers their asses on Valk debates for the last month and I'm not even trying to. Go back to being fvcking useless already.Me mocking a thread in which half the votes come from PT biased voters isn't investment it's a fact. LMAO.
So all the people you failed to convince in the debates where you "handed Sidious supporters their asses" are simply biased? Lmao.
Originally posted by The EllimistOh I'm not just arrogant. I'm the most egotistical bastard you've ever seen and don't you forget it. 😂
🙄 Has there ever been anyone on these forums with a higher arrogance : aptitude ratio?
I mean, besides obvious contenders like . . .Ellimist, my friend, you gotta cool down buddy, maybe try some deep breathing exercises before you go on these tirades of yours. This "Kenshin is a big bad meanine poopie head and I really really don't like him arrggh!" stuff is not the way to go about doing . . . well whatever it is you're trying to do here. Save all that for therapy . . . especially on the internet---just comes off as lulzy. That and . . . appeal to ridicule, so yeah. 😂
So many sophistic non-responses to get out of having to actually explain why the voting system is weird as you initially claimed.You accused me of suggesting people did something unkempt and that I was handwaving my initial comment. Now me responding to your accusations constitutes a non-response? What the hell kind of logic is that? 😂
Kenshin is trying to lecture others about posting style? Kenshin? Ohhh boy this is hilarious.Dude, you've literally used one comment I made in this thread to springboard into a soap opera styled rant regarding some pent up angst you appear to have been carrying about me for weeks now. What do you expect me to say about your posting style? 😄
I tried using math concepts in our hilarious discussion about feats and accolades and each time it was incredibly obvious you had no idea what I was talking about. Specifically, I tried to explain to you the difference between Y not being equivalent to X and Y not being an increasing function of X and you just completely blanked out and tried to compensate with incoherent smug sh*tposting.What you tried to do was vaguely hide behind math concepts to beat around having to actually address the limitations to your argument. I flipped your arguments on their head with a little ole fashioned reductio ad absurdum. You didn’t know how to respond to this, so you scurried away. But hey man, whatever rationalization helps you sleep at night! Just remember that when people find something hilarious, the first thing they do is immediately rabbit away from the thread ASAP without uttering a word. 😉
So what? The original purpose of the tournament was to reflect the "average opinion" of KMC. Average =/= majority, and contrary to your counterproposal it almost never means mode either. Not sure where your strawman comes from.I’m unfamiliar with discussions in regards to “the original purpose of the tournament”, but we can readily determine the average without the runoff mechanic (or this tournament setup for that matter), so that would be an argument invalidating every single concern you've made about split-voting (and basic math incidentally). In fact, if you now agree me with me that we don’t need a majority to make a determination (which is what this silly “strawman” sentiment seems to indicate), we can wrap this up right here and give each other a pat on the back!
under your apparently less "weird" system someone with a million second place votes and three first place votes would be valued less than someone with four first place votes and zero second place votes. So out of the entire set of possible characters, a 1st place vote is valued infinitely more than a 2nd place vote which is valued the same (zero) as a third or fourth, etc.Nah, I'm fairly certain there was no "first/second/third/fourth" place vote metric implemented (which would've been welcome and fairly useful) , so any argument made in lieu of that postulation is the strawman. Were there such a system put in place, the solution I would favor would be to tally the first/second/third place votes on each candidate, get the average on each and rank the candidates accordingly (and perhaps even skip the whole rounds idea and just do everything at once). As such, even though the guy in second place received less first place votes, his average would elevate him to first place anyway.
But that's for neither here nor there. You wanted to know why I didn't like the runoff system implemented here. I gave you a solid policy reason. Now you have utterly no desire to discuss my reason. Again, why are you here? 😂
That has...nothing to do with what I said. If you have various posters with various internal metrics for deciding characters' power, different metrics are going to have results "clustering" around different sets of characters. That one metric clusters around more groups of characters than another doesn't mean that the latter should be significantly more valued just because your voting system partitions the votes.You say my point has nothing to do with what you said. Um . . . yes it does. You made that the point that people could manipulate the vote if vote splitting was permitted. I pointed out that people could do that either way.
You now note that various posters have various internal metrics for deciding characters' power, but this is more a criticism to the way the tournament was a setup than my distaste for the runoff mechanic. A criticism that would be easy to rectify by simply turning this into a full-on poll and including a series of 1-10 scale questions assessing how much accolades, scaling, feats and whatever played a role into one's vote. Of course, we would need to nix the whole tournament idea, gather all the data at once via PM, perform the necessary calculations and then release the data for KMC members to review and interpret accordingly. But then we wouldn't have a tournament and hardly anybody wants that!
That's like asking whether the board likes red or blue more, but the poll splits red into 100 different shades and then declares blue the victor because it has a plurality. 🙄Nah, that's a specious example since a “hundred shades of red” by no mean compares to the varied tournament contenders we had here. The poll was never "Who is more powerful? Valkorion or ~Valkorion?" Instead, we got the full rainbow package and then some!
Once again, your response has nothing to do with what I was saying, which is a math concept - that when you're comparing two continuous distributions you do not get accurate conclusions about aggregates by using arbitrary binary bucket sorts like "only count 1st places and just pretend 2nd and 100th place are equally valuable".Doesn’t alter the fact that you’re ultimately making an arbitrary policy decision to use runoff voting as a means of securing allegedly accurate conclusions as opposed to simply having a full-on-poll. And the only kind of conclusion I’m talking about here is pretty straightforward: There was no majority consensus for who was the X most powerful, but a plurality leans towards Y. 100% airtight conclusion.
Not a single competent person here cares about what you think, lmao.And yet here you are having spent maybe 10+ post now begging me like a dog to explain what I think. Should I chalk that competent modifier up as a Freudian slip? 😂
Oh I'm not just arrogant. I'm the most egotistical bastard you've ever seen and don't you forget it. laughing out loud Ellimist, my friend, you gotta cool down buddy, maybe try some deep breathing exercises before you go on these tirades of yours. This "Kenshin is a big bad meanine poopie head and I really really don't like him arrggh!" stuff is not the way to go about doing . . . well whatever it is you're trying to do here. Save all that for therapy . . . especially on the internet---just comes off as lulzy. That and . . . appeal to ridicule, so yeah. laughing out loud
You accused me of suggesting people did something unkempt and that I was handwaving my initial comment. Now me responding to your accusations constitutes a non-response? What the hell kind of logic is that? laughing out loud
Dude, you've literally used one comment I made in this thread to springboard into a soap opera styled rant regarding some pent up angst you appear to have been carrying about me for weeks now. What do you expect me to say about your posting style? big grinDude, you've literally used one comment I made in this thread to springboard into a soap opera styled rant regarding some pent up angst you appear to have been carrying about me for weeks now. What do you expect me to say about your posting style?
What you tried to do was vaguely hide behind math concepts to beat around having to actually address the limitations to your argument. I flipped your arguments on their head with a little ole fashioned reductio ad absurdum. You didn’t know how to respond to this, so you scurried away. But hey man, whatever rationalization helps you sleep at night! Just remember that when people find something hilarious, the first thing they do is immediately rabbit away from the thread ASAP without uttering a word. wink
Congratulations, you've managed to set a new KMC records for most words typed without making a single coherent / falsifiable statement. Oh, and sounding like a complete madman while at it. 👆
I’m unfamiliar with discussions in regards to “the original purpose of the tournament”, but we can readily determine the average without the runoff mechanic (or this tournament setup for that matter), so that would be an argument invalidating every single concern you've made about split-voting (and basic math incidentally). In fact, if you now agree me with me that we don’t need a majority to make a determination (which is what this silly “strawman” sentiment seems to indicate), we can wrap this up right here and give each other a pat on the back!
I bolded the first actual claim you've made in this entire post. OK, please enlighten me; how can we truthfully determine average forum consensus in a way that leads to Valkorion winning?
Whatever the case, all I know is that a system to garner an artificial majority was used to decide the winner of each round. I said I didn’t like the system. You then spent a bunch of posts begging me to explain why I didn’t like it. Now that I finally have, you suddenly don't wanna talk about it . . . even going so far as to call it a "strawman" (WTF?!? laughing out loud ) Why are you here again?
😕 Where did I say you don't want to talk about? Wtf the **** are you saying? Lmfao
Nah, I'm fairly certain there was no "first/second/third/fourth" place vote metric implemented (which would've been welcome and fairly useful) , so any argument made in lieu of that postulation is the strawman. Were there such a system put in place, the solution I would favor would be to tally the first/second/third place votes on each candidate, get the average on each and rank the candidates accordingly (and perhaps even skip the whole rounds idea and just do everything at once). As such, even though the guy in second place received less first place votes, his average would elevate him to first place anyway.
OK, I bolded the second actual point you've kind of made thus far. Yes, that kind of system would have been ideal, but would have significantly reduced participation rates as a lot of people wouldn't want to rank like five people carefully. What we imagined was that the vast majority of these considerations tend to polarize into two or three parties, usually between PT-era and TOR-era people, and so the second and first place winners would tend to congregate votes pretty accurately, or at least better than just picking the plurality.
...and guess what, that's pretty much what happened. If you look at the latest poll, for instance, those voters who split into other PT/OT/NJO/etc. era characters pretty much unanimously went to Plagueis. So while it wasn't a 2nd/3rd/etc. system, it approximated it pretty well without inducing the hassle.
But that's for neither here nor there. You wanted to know why I didn't like the runoff system implemented here. I gave you a solid policy reason. Now you have utterly no desire to discuss my reason. Again, why are you here? laughing out loud
Wrong. You also claimed that Valkorion should have won, which suggests that you think the ideal system would've concluded things differently - but all of the evidence points towards Valkorion getting less weight the more continuous the metric.
Note you:
Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
By my count, Valky-boy has decisively won the last three rounds now, weird and unnecessary vote-voiding rules withstanding. So if anything, neither side of fanboys has anything to be grumbling about. 😂Time to get a move on!
^ so no, you lose again. Moving on:
You say my point has nothing to do with what you said. Um . . . yes it does. You made that the point that people could manipulate the vote if vote splitting was permitted. I pointed out that people could do that either way.You now note that various posters have various internal metrics for deciding characters' power, but this is more a criticism to the way the tournament was a setup than my distaste for the runoff mechanic. A criticism that would be easy to rectify by simply turning this into a full-on poll and including a series of 1-10 scale questions assessing how much accolades, scaling, feats and whatever played a role into one's vote. Of course, we would need to nix the whole tournament idea, gather all the data at once via PM, perform the necessary calculations and then release the data for KMC members to review and interpret accordingly. But then we wouldn't have a tournament and hardly anybody wants that!
Lmfao you answered your own question. 👆
The other part you didn't note is that part of these threads' purpose is to convince one another.
Nah, that's a specious example since a “hundred shades of red” by no mean compares to the varied tournament contenders we had here. The poll was never "Who is more powerful? Valkorion or ~Valkorion?" Instead, we got the full rainbow package and then some!
It's an exaggerated analogy but the empirics tell us that it's far closer to reality than you would think, because in the run-offs people almost entirely clustered to their era's characters.
Meanwhile, your system would benefit characters who just have fewer similar candidates "pulling" away their votes. It would be as if we had the incumbent president run right away against every single Democrat or Republican candidate and then picked based on the plurality - that would be absurd as the incumbent would basically always win.
Doesn’t alter the fact that you’re ultimately making an arbitrary policy decision to use runoff voting as a means of securing allegedly accurate conclusions as opposed to simply having a full-on-poll. And the only kind of conclusion I’m talking about here is pretty straightforward: There was no majority consensus for who was the X most powerful, but a plurality leans towards Y. 100% airtight conclusion.
Wrong. It's not "arbitrary" when it avoids the 100 shades of red problem. It is arbitrary to partition one cluster of voters more than another.
And yet here you are having spent maybe 10+ post now begging me like a dog to explain what I think. Should I chalk that competent modifier up as a Freudian slip? laughing out loud
Ah, yes - asking you to justify a claim and taking fun mocking you on Google hangouts with others for it means that I'm "begging" you to do something. No, not really. But you're welcome to keep thinking that way, whatever helps you maintain your smug delusions of not being a joke of a member here. 👆
Originally posted by The EllimistFix'd for accuracy and wish granted.
Congratulations, I can't think of a response justifying why I'm trying to change the subject, how responding to bold accusations I've made constitutes a non-response, why I'm bringing up past-debates I rabbited away from or your japes in retort . . . so let me maintain a shred of dignity by dismissing it all as incoherent/unfalsifiable. 👆
I bolded the first actual claim you've made in this entire post. OK, please enlighten me; how can we truthfully determine average forum consensus in a way that leads to Valkorion winning?That would assume, without justification, that the statistical average forum consensus does indeed support Valkorion winning. Frankly, I have no clue, but I've already laid out the methods for making a legit poll. See my previous post. Oh and . . . strawman fallacy. 😂
Where did I say you don't want to talk about? Wtf the **** are you saying? Lmfao.Wtf are you saying? 😂 You asked me, no begged me to explain why I don't like the runoff mechanic. I tell you in plain English. Immediately, the first thing you do is dismiss my thoughts as a "strawman" (a strawman of WHAT by the way?) and try to shift the discussion to this talk about averages. Great, but that clearly wasn't what I was talking about.
OK, I bolded the second actual point you've kind of made thus far. Yes, that kind of system would have been ideal, but would have significantly reduced participation rates as a lot of people wouldn't want to rank like five people carefully.Except you've repeatedly made the case about the need for statistical accuracy, so pick your poison. If you're gonna turn around and take "fun factor" into account, then I go right back to what I've been saying in that there's no need to "get a majority" and that the conclusion that "there's no majority consensus, but a plurality supports Y" is sufficient. Yes, a majority end up being not ~Valkorion, but a majority is also ~Mace and ~ Plagueis. So all your talk about PT/TOR era polarization and the methods sought to address it don't really follow unless you making the point that PT wins and TOR loses, but then that kind of reasoning would call into question every single concern you've expressed about the polling accuracy. 😕
Wrong. You also claimed that Valkorion should have won, which suggests that you think the ideal system would've concluded things differently - but all of the evidence points towards Valkorion getting less weight the more continuous the metric.Again, I have no clue how a legitimate poll would fair for the Valkster, but based on my initial comment you're quoting, I'm clearly talking about the plurality of the vote he had gained prior to the runoff. Bad bad bad logic. ❌
Lmfao you answered your own question.Nah, I highlighted the inconsistency in trying to make a case for getting the most accurate/reliable data by using the tournament as its been setup. Basically trying to have your cake and eat it. 👆The other part you didn't note is that part of these threads' purpose is to convince one another.
You talk about convincing other people. Yeah . . . that ain't happening and you summarized why with your explanation about there being some TOR/PT divide or somesuch. 😂
It's an exaggerated analogy but the empirics tell us that it's far closer to reality than you would think, because in the run-offs people almost entirely clustered to their era's characters.If people are truly that divided (and I have no idea, but I'll take your word for it), sounds like a TOR/PT/NJO poll would be more expedient for any intra era matchup.
Ah, yes - asking you to justify a claim and taking fun mocking you on Google hangouts with others for it means that I'm "begging" you to do something. No, not really. But you're welcome to keep thinking that way, whatever helps you maintain your smug delusions of not being a joke of a member here.If being a joke member means not having to sit around begging people to respond to him for maybe 10+ post and then claiming they don't care what that person thinks, I wear the title with honor. 🙂
Anyway, unless if you want to engage with the actual claim you made that (that 1) there is a fairer process and 2) that process would favor Valkorion), I see no need to discuss this further.
^
Have a good one! 🤣
Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
Again, I have no clue how a legitimate poll would fair for the Valkster, but based on my initial comment you're quoting, I'm clearly talking about the plurality of the vote
So first you say that Valkorion won the last three rounds [by plurality] but still lost because of “weird and unnecessary rules”, which obviously means you think plurality > run-off.
Then when I explain why the plurality system doesn’t work, you say that the run-off isn’t perfect either and we should use like a 1st, 2nd, etc. place ranking system or something. In other words, you abandon comparing plurality vs. run-off to instead suggest a third alternative.
When pressed on how this would help Valkorion given that the run-off is closer to a continuous system and Valkorion does much worse than a plurality, implying that a more continuous system goes against him, you say you aren’t claiming it would.
So you go from “Valkorion should have won because he won a plurality” to “well we could use [the very opposite of plurality voting]” to “well that system might not have Valkorion win anyway”.
Of course, if you now deny that you ever said Valkorion “should” have won but were just describing that he won a plurality then that would beg the question to why you said:
By my count, Valky-boy has decisively won the last three rounds now [note: under a plurality system, you say], weird and unnecessary vote-voiding rules withstanding. So if anything, neither side of fanboys has anything to be grumbling about._Time to get a move on!
You’re welcome to keep trying to spin this into not involving a value judgment of the plurality vs. run-off voting systems. 🙄
but a majority is also ~Mace and ~ Plagueis.
Yes, but the ~Mace fraction ranks Mace higher than the ~Valkorion fraction ranks Valkorion. Indeed, there’s an almost perfect polarization between the PT/etc. and TOR eras – this isn’t a prediction but rather an empirical statement that you can easily verify by looking at the run-off vs. initial tallies. This is why a binary “1st place or nothing” system doesn’t work.
PS. saying “the run-off is more accurate than a plurality and more practical than a continuous system” isn’t a contradiction, lmfao.
Anyway, I broke my promise to not bother responding to your trolling, so I’ll keep it this time.