Suggestions on how to change 'Souls' polls?
#1
To begin with, this is an unofficial survey. This is me as a player asking, not me representing staff or pack leadership.

So, November is coming up, and, as you all know, towards the end of that month/into December, 'Souls' staff and leadership will start preparing the usual end-of-year things in preparation for the 2022 Yearbook. This includes character and plot superlatives.

In a survey that was run back in March of this year, for the "I like contests with voting polls" rating question, 68% of those that took the survey agreed that they thought polls generally ended up as popularity contests more often than not. The Superlatives are a poll-based contest (for lack of a better word), which is why I've brought this up. I know the superlatives are often a greatly anticipated thing each year (personally, I love to see the nominees and what fun categories we might get to vote for every year!). However, I also know that polls are polls, and they will, inevitably, always end up somewhat skewed when it comes to those that have a character/plot/etc. that is voted as the "most-fitting/best" of something.

The way superlatives are done each year are as follows:

  1. Players suggest superlatives
  2. Staff votes on which ones to use for that year
  3. Superlatives are released, and players nominate an individual(s) or plot(s) per superlative with limitations on how many repeats you can make
  4. Superlative polls are created based on the names/plots that were nominated for that particular superlative
  5. Polls are closed, and those with the highest votes are put in the yearbook
Issues often arise at Stage 4, where players vote. During which, I've seen, heard, and, as the survey shows, quite a few agree that the polls are not as impartial as they would be in a perfect world.

TL;DR: My question to y'all: Is there anything that you think staff (or pack leaders) could do differently for Superlatives — and other similar "contests" — in an effort to NOT make these polls feel like popularity contests?

And, in the end, honestly, it may boil down to just us continuing how we've done for the past few years. Polls will be polls, and players will vote how they want to vote, be it their true opinion/feelings that their choice is the best fitting or not. There may, honestly, be no getting around how it's done/will inevitably go, and that's just the nature of things. And that's fine!

I'm just curious if anyone might have a suggestion that the community might feel is a better method <333 As this is a suggestion thread and is an unofficial "survey", I, obviously, can't guarantee that anything will actually be implemented, but, I thought it might be fair and good to maybe get opinions or alternative ideas if nothing else!
  Reply
#2
I don't have any suggestions, really -- because I don't think there really is anything that could be done about this?

The superlatives are subjective, and whether a character/plot "deserves" a nomination or vote is going to differ from person to person. Yes, maybe some players will vote for a nomination merely on the basis of "Wolf's player is my friend, so I want them to win" without giving due consideration to the other nominees -- which is what I think is the issue/impartiality you're referring to? And to some, it might seem like certain "popular" characters win a lot, which might be discouraging to less established players. Honestly, I think there will always be some amount of disappointment if your character doesn't win something, and it's easy to deride something as a "popularity contest" if things don't go their way.

However, it's natural that players would be more familiar with their friends' characters/plots -- they probably are threading with those characters, or discussing these plots with each other. Some characters (and players) are popular because they're established and active. And while some players are "around" the forum a lot and caught up on all the IC drama, others might not have the time to look into the nominations to judge them. (For example, while plot threads are linked, character nominations often necessitate someone read multiple threads to determine why Dog should win "Woobiest of Them All," which might be a lot to ask of someone especially around the holidays. If they're in Dog's pack or friends with Dog's player, then they might be more familiar with Dog and more inclined to vote for them.)

All I think can really be done is a call/reminder for players to actually "research" the nominations, if they can (which again, might not be feasible) -- but also to lead by example. If players are concerned about "popularity contests," they should lead by example if they can, and lift up "overlooked" characters or give reasons for their nominations.

Actually -- adding thread links or "reasons" behind nominations might be beneficial, now that I think about it? For the monthly spotlights, leaders give reasons behind their nominations, and it can be a discussion (as well as a vote) about who gets Spotlight or Community Soul. For Yearbook, only character names (and links for plot/thread nominations) are offered.
  Reply
#3
Instead of players voting on suggested superlative nominees, why not have nominated characters, plots, and/or players randomly drawn? Assign each name a number or drop their name into a hat. Whatever random number is picked or name is drawn from the hat is the winner, instead of being voted on.
  Reply
#4
Honestly I kind of get what Dale is going for, but for me personally I do think that having winners and nominated people just randomly assigned would kind of kill the fun out of winning? It'd just be a raffle instead of feeling appreciated for the work you put into your character's development or plot or etc.

Maybe instead we can have some sort of system that doesn't run off of the 'popularity' of a character/plot/thread, but instead participation/activity? I know with Wordtober and LCSS and other recent contests/events that have been very successful thus far, you usually just have to put in some work doing your daily posts or WC or whatever it may be, and then you get a cool prize for your hard work at the end. Maybe there is some way we could take that system and modify it for Superlatives?

I'm not quite sure how to do this without killing what is fun about Superlatives, though, which I think is having a cool little 'title' assigned to your character such as 'Most Likely to [x]' or some such. Maybe if you participate in the Superlatives 'event' enough to earn the prizes, YOU get to choose your own character's title?

I guess the most troublesome part would be figuring out what counts as participation from players in such an event. Maybe just making OOC posts where you talk about what you liked about [x] player's thread, [y] player's character, etc. - spreading the love of the community. That might be too OOC-based though and not enough IC-based... Still, I think it would help to make the appreciation and love feel more... neutrally given out and not so tied to popularity, because you'd have to put in some love to get some back? I dunno :P These are just off the top of my brain, so they could have a lot of problems, but let me know what you guys think <:

I don't necessarily dislike the way things are set up now. I do understand that certain players/characters are popular for a reason: they've been here for a long time and have put in a lot of work to BECOME popular. So in a way, the current system already awards participation/activity. However, I also understand the way that it can discourage newer players that may still be finding their footing in the community. So these are my suggestions for how it can be more all-encompassing and inclusive for all types of players on the site.



'Souls resident slime creatures
OPEN for commissions (check out my site!)
Current Speed: Slow



quick links
player wiki
adoptables
my site


  Reply
#5
The superlatives have a fun idea behind them. But I recall that when we were newer as a player, we felt uncomfortable with the idea (for lack of a better word). I know for a fact I am not alone, because more than one other player has confided in me (and also in more public places like Discord channels) that they felt the same way. It does feel like a popularity contest, and now we know that a majority of the site agrees.

That isn't to say that I really blame anyone for this, this community is maybe just on the older side when it comes to persisting websites. It's from a time where social activities like this were handled in different ways. Perhaps with less consideration for those on the 'outside', so to speak. We have all matured, especially with the site being 18+ now. It is important to make a change to it if such a significant portion of the community has felt excluded by it, or just felt that it is an exclusive practice in general.

I understand that many may be of the opinion that it may just be the nature of things or that there is no avoiding this feeling exclusive. It may feel a little difficult or bothersome to change, especially after so many years of doing it. But I feel like with a considerable statistic like that, it's vital to take steps to make the community feel more at home and welcomed by each other. It's important to make people feel included (especially on a site like this, with a focus on people writing and interacting with each other), and it's hard to do that with superlatives set up the way they are.

What matters most (in my opinion) is to focus on the purpose/intent of the superlatives. And the result.

I honestly cannot guess as to what exact original purpose these polls were meant to serve, because my system has not been around for very long as a player. At least relatively. Is it a purpose that is an important reason to keep it going? Has the intent behind it been changed as the decision has continually been made to continue it each year? The nominations are a good element, in that other players can splotlight each other's characters and highlight what they enjoyed about each other's writing.

I may not have many detailed suggestions for change, but we should question why we include the superlatives in the yearbook every year. If it is unavoidable that people feel excluded, why should we continue? Do we need to include it, or could it be replaced or left out of the yearbook going forward?

I personally feel that the yearbook would not suffer if superlatives were no longer included. It could be replaced with an alternative that could be a lot more enjoyable and less anxiety inducing with regard to rejection and exclusivity. The yearbook also has a lot of content in it already aside from the superlatives. I'm sure a lot of people would hate to see it go because of nostalgia or because change in general is hard, and I get that feeling. Still, it isn't worth hanging on to if it's something the community wants changed. I won't be voting or nominating with it anymore most likely, and I've heard others saying they aren't interested in doing it anymore too.

With so many of us having this opinion, there would be benefit if we changed it for the better.

- Alex
[Image: randum_fursona_2.png]
Viktory System
Hey there, we are the Viktory System! We are a system. That is to say, we are many people that live in one physical body. Just think of us as a team collaborating to write. Below are some links where you can find more information about plurality and systems like us if you're curious.

What is plurality?Plural jumpstartQuestioning?

[Image: he_him_by_agent_pits-d88i5w6.png]
[Image: uHGBiGF.png] [Image: Xz5AJWt.png] [Image: geXceWY.png] [Image: transgender_by_agent_pits-d88d990.png]
(Art is by me)
  Reply
#6
Re: Polls in general;
I DO think what DCG did recently for the LCSS's Best In Show event was a good alternative to the traditional best-nominee-type poll contest, however, too, that contest was actually meant to be "voted for" In-Character, thus, why I think it worked better the way it was done this year. Having players post and have their characters more or less "explain" the reason behind their vote not only helped increase board activity, but, allowed, in my opinion, for players to vote more in line with how their character would actually vote vs. how the player OOCly wants to vote. It also, in my opinion too, helped prevent just spam voting just to vote since, in order for your vote to be "valid," you had to actually post to the thread.

Re: Superlatives specifically;
In regards to why we currently have Superlatives, I think it's mostly because it's been done consistently for a while now (since 2006!), and it acts as a way to notice/recognize characters or plots/threads for things done throughout the year, kind of like how the Community Spotlight and Soul Spotlight do per month. I like them for that reason (having a character/plot recognized/highlighted). With that in mind, I do agree that doing a raffle-type win, unfortunately, wouldn't feel as impactful.

I wouldn't necessarily want to remove Superlatives, however, they have been removed in the past due to various issues/problems arising at the the poll stage (something that is no longer an issue). I think they're something that help players feel more involved with the YB each year, and, like I said previously, I do think it's nice to recognize characters/plots on this writing site of ours ^___^

And, yes, the perceived idea of having friends all pool in and vote for each other's characters to help each other "win" was the "issue/impartiality" I was referring to. It has been...taxing to say the least to see/hear these over the years x,D Because, yes, in the end, it's a contest based on opinion, which often requires you to have some sort of knowledge of what/who you're voting for in order to make a good/unbiased judgement. Otherwise, it's usually just a, "Well...this one might fit best?" or "Well...I know this character at least, so, vote for them?".

Re: provide "evidence/reasons" or turning the nominations into a discussion versus just simply throwing a name on the nomination list, I think, might actually help players that DON'T know about the character or plot/thread. As Raze stated, that's how it's always been done for CS/SS nominations each month. By doing that, players would be able to see why the person nominated the character or plot/thread, and then even players that don't know EVERY nominee would be able to see that, "Oh, y'know, that's a good example :O" or "Oooo, yes! That IS a good reason! :O"

In an effort to discuss an alternative to the Superlatives though, we could maybe do something that's per Player? Like, maybe you sign up ONE of your characters, and your peers can nominate maybe a Superlative fitting for them and a favorite thread/plot that that character was involved in, and then polls can be done that way? That way, everyone gets a superlative via getting at least 1 character noticed? The only problem this would cause would be that we wouldn't be able to do couple/group Superlatives or specific plot/thread Superlatives. -thinking-

Admittedly, it'd also mean ALOT more extra work for staff for creating the polls/plugging it into the YB ^^; HOWEVER, that's assuming that EVERY player actually signs up a character to have nominations filled out for it. Most years, we have a good handful of players that don't participate in YB activities at all.
  Reply
#7
I really like that alternative idea you came up with, Songbird! It sucks that it would result in a lot of extra work though. Maybe there is SOME way we can keep that main idea of yours but tweak it so it isn't so work-heavy...? Nothing's coming to mind for me just yet, but I'll try to think on it more and edit or reply again if I come up with anything.



'Souls resident slime creatures
OPEN for commissions (check out my site!)
Current Speed: Slow



quick links
player wiki
adoptables
my site


  Reply
#8
Personally, I love the superlatives and I look forward to them. It's an old tradition here and I'd be sad to see it go, so much has changed in the 12 years I've been here and while I'm all for change and development, it feels like a "'Souls thing" that has remained a nice constant.

I think it's natural for people to vote for "friends" or people they interact with often because, well, the site as a whole makes thousands of posts a year. Even when I had all the time in the world for 'Souls, I didn't manage to read nearly a fraction of what was posted during the span of a month or a week. I usually/do read from plots I'm invested in, or from characters I'm familiar with, and most especially from my own pack because what happens in those threads influences my character more than what happens in threads in other packs. I think saying that voting for the people you interact with most is "voting only for friends" is a bit of a generalisation, sure it happens, but probably not as deliberately as we think.

I do quite like the idea of "supporting evidence" though, because often plots or threads are nominated that I don't really have any background information on and I don't usually have time to read *all* the nominated threads fully and ruminate on the decision.

But all in all, I think it's such a small part of 'Souls, only an annual thing without much "reward," so I don't really see much of a point in changing in bar the integration of the above point?
  Reply
#9
Lots of good points have already been made here! I am definitely in the camp that likes and appreciates the superlatives for what they are: recognizing characters, relationships and threads that really stood out in the past year (and, in the case of threads, giving you a convenient link to go read old threads for hours on end like I end up doing).

I'll echo the point that it's natural that the superlatives would kind of be dominated by older characters and players that are more established -- and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing! I can see how that might be a bit discouraging to newer players, but the 'SA also highlights newer players/characters pretty regularly through honors like Spotlight/Community Soul. If anything, I think wanting to make your character noteworthy enough to make a superlative in the next year could be a good motivator to stick around and develop your characters (but just wanting to rack up superlatives instead of engaging in good storytelling is obviously not the end goal here).

I would suggest -- and I don't know how feasible this is, since it would likely involve changing some forum settings around -- maybe hiding the results of the polls after you vote? If memory serves, anyone can pretty much see who's in the lead immediately after casting your vote with the "show results" button. I don't know if that really influences anything given it's only visible, as far as I remember, after you vote, but just something to consider! If so-and-so offhandedly mentions that Wolf is already in the lead for Best Hair, that might sway someone that hasn't voted yet.

I definitely love the idea of supporting your nominations, though -- it works well for SS/CS and makes those seem less like a popularity contest and more of a "X did these things this month and it was great, you should go check it out because they did a cool thing." :)
  Reply
#10
Quote:I would suggest -- and I don't know how feasible this is, since it would likely involve changing some forum settings around -- maybe hiding the results of the polls after you vote? If memory serves, anyone can pretty much see who's in the lead immediately after casting your vote with the "show results" button. I don't know if that really influences anything given it's only visible, as far as I remember, after you vote, but just something to consider! If so-and-so offhandedly mentions that Wolf is already in the lead for Best Hair, that might sway someone that hasn't voted yet.


I'd love this actually if it's possible! It would add another level of suspense and, yeah, it would definitely get rid of a level of potential sway if implemented.
  Reply
#11
(19 October 2022, 10:09 AM)veldt Wrote: I would suggest [...] maybe hiding the results of the polls after you vote? If memory serves, anyone can pretty much see who's in the lead immediately after casting your vote with the "show results" button.

I don't know if 'SA can change how you see the "results", but, I think this actually wouldn't be a bad idea! :O That way, we can still keep the poll system without doing anything too drastic. But! More importantly, the results really ARE a surprise to the player base, and no one can be bitter or claim that, "Oh this one's only winning because they got their friends to vote" or "Those two were in the lead, so, everyone just cast their votes in for those two because voting anything else wouldn't have mattered."

----

SO! Based on what a few of you had said/agreed on thus far, there could possibly be a pitch for:

  • Requiring players to "back up" their suggested nominees at Stage 3.
    When staff compiles the nominees for the polls at Stage 4, we can make a summary of those things into the reply post to the main poll thread (like how we do for Plot/Thread Superlatives nominees). This would allow players who are not familiar with nominees to know a little more about the characters or plot/threads that they have to choose from, and could possibly make some feel more confident when making their selection rather than just throwing a vote to vote when they're unfamiliar with the nominated parties.

  • Hiding the poll results from members while the poll is still live.
    This would take away being able to see the progress of the votes, which could remove any negative feelings of not seeing certain characters voted for and only "popular" characters getting the votes. Players would be unable to see who are the "leading" nominees, which would also prevent players from claiming that individuals garnered extra votes from friends to boost their numbers. Hiding the results could allow for more honest votes, as players will be unable to see who is/isn't "in the lead."
  Reply
#12
Upon reflecting on the last few yearbooks' superlatives, I believe that another way to spread the love around could be limiting the number of superlatives that a player can win -- so that a "popular" player doesn't end up winning multiple superlatives. Whether this is easier handled at the nomination stage or after the voting stage, I don't know, because if they qualify for multiple nominations/wins, there would need to be a way to choose what they end up winning (e.g., they win "Best Dressed" by a larger margin than "Best Hair" so they earn the former superlative and the "runner-up" wins the latter).

In the end, though, I still believe that votes will be skewed toward characters etc that people are familiar with (because they're established, because they're active in chats or plots), and I feel like that's a natural thing.
  Reply
#13
(19 October 2022, 10:55 AM)Raze Wrote: Upon reflecting on the last few yearbooks' superlatives, I believe that another way to spread the love around could be limiting the number of superlatives that a player can win -- so that a "popular" player doesn't end up winning multiple superlatives. Whether this is easier handled at the nomination stage or after the voting stage, I don't know, because if they qualify for multiple nominations/wins, there would need to be a way to choose what they end up winning (e.g., they win "Best Dressed" by a larger margin than "Best Hair" so they earn the former superlative and the "runner-up" wins the latter).

We (staff) have actually discussed this in the past, as well as when characters basically win the same superlative two-years in a row (which was our bad when we narrowed down superlatives @___@)! In the end, it came down to the fact that, if that's how the players vote, that's how they vote, and that we shouldn't meddle with it. We thought that it might be seen as unfair to take away a "win" from someone, as well, that the players may not like it because their votes said that they wanted X to "win", only for staff to say, "No, we're giving it to someone else instead." And then there was the thought of, well, what if player would have felt more partial to winning X Superlative instead of Y Superlative, etc. etc.

Though, speaking of runner-ups, perhaps that could be something we add? -thinking- Typically, we do the avatar YB picture of the character/plot, and then the name. It wouldn't be much more to add another line with smaller text that is: "Runner-Up: [ blah ]".
  Reply
#14
A lot of good ideas and input!

Kind of going off Raze's idea, I've noticed during the nomination process that there will be repeat nominations of characters for the same category. I think by imposing a rule that's like "a character can only be nominated once for this superlative" you might guide players to look around and offer up other names.

I like the idea of hiding poll results and requiring players to provide links to threads to back up their nominations (also it would help me, the voter, be informed about the other juicy plots I've missed!)

Another suggestion: there could be "pack/loners" superlatives? Or if this is too much work - it could be that part of the nominations process that players have to nominate at least 1 character/couple/thread from each different area/pack, or something along those lines.
  Reply
#15
We collect all nominees that are submitted at the Stage 3 phase, regardless of whether they've been nominated once or more than that. Personally, I think it's fine to allow multiple players to have the same nominee for a particular Superlative. Players can always change their nominee up until we close that part of the Superlative event. I typically try to throw in alternative names to help with diversity at poll time unless I just feel super strongly about a particular character/plot. Players have always been free to do this too if they so desire.

So, say:
PlayerA initially nominates Wolf for "Best Hair." PlayerB also thinks Wolf is a good nominee for "Best Hair", so they also put them down for their nominee. When the nominee suggestion even ends, staff will see that Wolf was one of the names, and put Wolf into the Stage 4 voting; how many times Wolf was nominated in Stage 3 has no effect on Stage 4 voting polls (other than players seeing that Wolf was suggested alot previously).

If, before the Stage 3 event ends, PlayerA decides to change their mind and make their nominee Coyote instead, when staff collects the nominee names for Stage 4, both Wolf and Coyote will go on to the Stage 4 voting, regardless of how little or much they were nominated at Stage 3.

Our categories for Superlatives, presently, go: Individual Character, Pairs/Groups, and Plots/Threads. Characters and Plots/Threads can be from anywhere (pack or loner alike), and are dependent on the players to decide who to highlight/recognize from the entire forum as a whole. The main issue I could see with forcing a nomination of 1 character/group/plot per pack/area would be the worry of "promoting cliques", group vs. group mentality, and adding another layer of players perceiving "only the popular ones get noticed" both at the nomination stage and at the poll stage. By having it a free-for-all like it is currently, players can't as easily pit pack pride against others, nor does it make it as easy for players to feel less noticed by their packmates in favor of someone else in the group instead.

The less of an obvious tie a character/plot has to a specific pack or area, the better I think they will fair with having "unbiased" votes. Players who are familiar with the characters/plots will, obviously, recognize them for what they are, however, I'd like to avoid players just blanket-voting for, say, every named Cavalier nominee they see at the poll stage 4, or, groups/packs organizing who their "nominee" will be at the suggestion stage 3.

Having this:
  • Name
  • Name
  • Name
Feels like it would have less of a chance to cause perceived bias/popularity vote/friend vote issues than this:
  • Salsola: Name
  • Casa di Cavalieri: Name
  • Del Cenere Gang: Name
  • New Caledonia: Name
  • Loners: Name


EDIT: Just to clarify, a lot of what I'm speaking from/keep bringing up (because I know I probably sound like a negative nag Dx) are things I know I will inevitably have show up in my DMs as a complaint from disgruntled players, or, are complaints/opinions I've had come to me in the past. I don't like for players to feel dissatisfied or bitter about this community ;___; Thus, this thread to try to see if there is a "better" way to go about it that will make players feel less sad/mad/unhappy about how these things go.

EDIT EDIT: Whoops, I just now realized that this should probably go in a different sub-forum x,D
  Reply
#16
This is a good discussion! I love the points and suggestions that have already been made, particularly with regards to asking players to explain why they're nominating a character(s) for a particular superlative. Hiding poll results is a super good idea, too!

The first thing that I started wondering about when I saw this discussion was ranked-choice voting. This would also require extra work on the backend, but if players ranked nominees (Coyote is my 1st choice, Dog is 2nd, Wolf is 3rd, etc.) and votes were redistributed as lesser-voted nominees were eliminated, it may result in some surprise winners. It wouldn't necessarily reduce any biases/favoritism, but it could help players feel as though their vote matters more and may add a little more fairness to the voting process itself?

I haven't looked into it enough to see what sorts of apps or programs there may be out there that could help make this process a little less complicated, but this is a way it could be done with Google Forms & Sheets.

Anyway, just another thought to add to the mix! ;D
  Reply
#17
(19 October 2022, 01:08 PM)Songbird Wrote: We collect all nominees that are submitted at the Stage 3 phase, regardless of whether they've been nominated once or more than that.  Personally, I think it's fine to allow multiple players to have the same nominee for a particular Superlative.  Players can always change their nominee up until we close that part of the Superlative event.  I typically try to throw in alternative names to help with diversity at poll time unless I just feel super strongly about a particular character/plot.  Players have always been free to do this too if they so desire.

So, say:
PlayerA initially nominates Wolf for "Best Hair."  PlayerB also thinks Wolf is a good nominee for "Best Hair", so they also put them down for their nominee.  When the nominee suggestion even ends, staff will see that Wolf was one of the names, and put Wolf into the Stage 4 voting; how many times Wolf was nominated in Stage 3 has no effect on Stage 4 voting polls (other than players seeing that Wolf was suggested alot previously).

If, before the Stage 3 event ends, PlayerA decides to change their mind and make their nominee Coyote instead, when staff collects the nominee names for Stage 4, both Wolf and Coyote will go on to the Stage 4 voting, regardless of how little or much they were nominated at Stage 3.

Ah! I should clarify that my point wasn't about how nominations are counted - it's about the diversification of nominations (which might help with biased voting). So by limiting things at the nomination stage, you encourage players to think of alternative nominations. Sort of like a ranked voting system, if that makes sense?

For example:
PlayerA nominated Wolf for "Best Hair".
PlayerB sees that Wolf, who was the first person to come to mind, was already nominated for best hair. They look around the forum for a different but qualified candidate, and then nominates Coyote for "Best Hair".
PlayerC, seeing that Coyote and Wolf have been nominated for best hair, looks around and nominates Jackal for "Best Hair".

Etc etc.

I'll edit when I have more time to read the rest about your thoughts on the group/pack idea!


Edit:

Quote:Our categories for Superlatives, presently, go: Individual Character, Pairs/Groups, and Plots/Threads. Characters and Plots/Threads can be from anywhere (pack or loner alike), and are dependent on the players to decide who to highlight/recognize from the entire forum as a whole. The main issue I could see with forcing a nomination of 1 character/group/plot per pack/area would be the worry of "promoting cliques", group vs. group mentality, and adding another layer of players perceiving "only the popular ones get noticed" both at the nomination stage and at the poll stage. By having it a free-for-all like it is currently, players can't as easily pit pack pride against others, nor does it make it as easy for players to feel less noticed by their packmates in favor of someone else in the group instead.

Oh nooo LOL I'm with you on the same goals (reducing insecurities about group/clique mentalities). I think as well I completely bungled everything I said because I was trying to suggest something to mitigate those things.

Just to be clear about where I'm coming from: after reading through the replies here and based on my own experience, it's demanding to be on top of all the ongoing threads site-wide, as all of us are limited in our time. (It's why I really support having justifications for nominations - I love to be able to see what I missed elsewhere!) For myself, time constrains me to my zones: I know way more about what plots are unfolding in a pack I'm involved in vs. when I am not part of the pack.

My suggestion about having players required to nominate 1 character from each pack/area was coming from a place of anti-group/clique mentality. I meant for the requirement to encourage others to look at other pack plots that they might not currently be looking at (for whichever legitimate reasons!) But I see now there is no real way of implementing that without, like you said, causing confusion or insecurity. So best to leave groups out of it!
  Reply
#18
Re: Google Forms / Sheets; The only main issue with that is that we can't verify who voted for what. A player can put their name, but, what's to also stop a dishonest player from putting someone else's name to vote twice? Dx

Re: Ranked-choice voting; I think this one could be something to consider for an option. -thinking- I'm not sure how players might feel to us eliminating nominees though before they're allowed to be voted on though. Personally, I wouldn't mind opening up the choices to allowing players to pick their top 2 choices, and then just adding more names come poll-time. Players can choose at the poll who they REALLY want for their vote.


(19 October 2022, 02:57 PM)San Wrote: Ah! I should clarify that my point wasn't about how nominations are counted - it's about the diversification of nominations (which might help with biased voting). So by limiting things at the nomination stage, you encourage players to think of alternative nominations. Sort of like a ranked voting system, if that makes sense? [...]

No worries! Sorry for me focusing on the wrong thing! The only issue I could see with this would be if a player decides to change their nominee choice later, which would mean players would have to re-check the nominee suggestions periodically to make sure that their "actual" choice wasn't "removed," and that they themselves don't then need to change their nominee choice to ensure the character they actually want gets to the poll.

(19 October 2022, 02:57 PM)San Wrote: [...] My suggestion about having players required to nominate 1 character from each pack/area was coming from a place of anti-group/clique mentality. [...]

Nah, I understood what ya' meant! <333 And, honestly, I think would help with catching people up on things they either forgot or happened in other parts of the forum they don't frequent and just opening horizons more. I just also know the jaded side of it, and see how it could be used in ways that it wasn't intended Dx
  Reply
#19
(19 October 2022, 04:44 PM)Songbird Wrote: Re: Google Forms / Sheets; The only main issue with that is that we can't verify who voted for what. A player can put their name, but, what's to also stop a dishonest player from putting someone else's name to vote twice? Dx

Re: Ranked-choice voting; I think this one could be something to consider for an option. -thinking- I'm not sure how players might feel to us eliminating nominees though before they're allowed to be voted on though. Personally, I wouldn't mind opening up the choices to allowing players to pick their top 2 choices, and then just adding more names come poll-time. Players can choose at the poll who they REALLY want for their vote.

Oh, I worded things poorly. D: I meant that the ranked-choice voting would take place during the final vote, after nominees were selected for each superlative.

So say, for example, when voting for the category "Best Hair" and the nominees for that are Coyote, Dog, Wolf, Dingo, and Hybrid, players would rank them from 1st to 5th choice. If there's clear winner (probably 50% of the votes + 1), that nom would win and the process would be no different as it's always been. But if there isn't a clear winner for first place, then the nominee with the fewest votes would be eliminated and that nom's votes would be shuffled into each players' second choice nominee and so on until a clear winner is found.

Also, players wouldn't have to rank their choices. If they wanted to only vote for one nominee, that would be okay too! But their vote would end after that nominee was eliminated (just like it is now) vs carrying on through the elimination process. Because change can be really difficult for some players (which is totally valid!), ranked-choice voting might feel like the least stressful and demanding for them if we were to seriously consider altering this process.

But, again, this would mean more work on the back end for staff and I'm not sure if the board's current poll system allows for ranked-choices, which is why I had brought up Google Forms/Sheets. But yeah, that poses its own concerns. I'd have to do more research to see if there are other, more secure options, but its also not ideal to have these polls hosted off-site, so... I don't know! It's just another idea that I thought might feel less daunting for some folks while also giving votes more weight. c:
  Reply


Forum Jump: