Forum talk:Smash Arena/Archive 1

A 0 vote rule

If they post something below or above the <-DO NOT blah blah blah-> when it tells them not to, make it a 0 count. I'm sick of it. Who can't read that? If you're blind, you can't find this place, let alone vote.--MegaTron1XD 22:18, 14 November 2010 (EST)

If things continue to be bad after a few rounds of the half-vote rule, then I'll consider it. Toomai Glittershine 23:46, 14 November 2010 (EST)

A 1/2 vote rule

I like Mega's idea somewhat, but feel a 0 vote is a little too harsh. Perhaps we can make a rule, just like his guidelines, but instead it will count as half a vote.-Ivy73 20:56, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Umm, Ivy, can you read? That's happening NEXT round and I'm aware of that :/--MegaTron1XD 21:05, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Sorry. I guess that's what Toomai said. Why do I always make an *** out of myself? -Ivy73 21:09, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Half vote section?

What are you talking about?--MegaTron1XD 18:50, 19 November 2010 (EST)

The first time a vote has to be made into a half-vote, a section labelled "Half-Votes" will be added to the coloured block in the same way as the Anonymous Votes sections in old fights (have a look at the first few archive pages). Toomai Glittershine 18:56, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Change?

Can we change our vote? I didn't, nor do I want to, but I'm just wondering. --Landfish7 21:41, 21 November 2010 (EST)

People have changed their votes before (I think); there's nothing wrong with it. Toomai Glittershine 22:34, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Irritation

Do people just not respect votes that break rules, or is there an invisible consensus going around that an hour of a fix period is too long? Toomai Glittershine 09:44, 12 December 2010 (EST)

I gave about a half hour for Zero to fix it, and when that time came, I noticed he wasn't online anymore, so I moved it to the half vote section without having to wait another half hour when the user in question was likely to not show back up. And my intuition proved correct as I have not seen him since.

As for the length of time, a half hour to an hour is good enough. After a half hour has passed, and the user in question isn't online, I think it's alright to move the vote to the half vote section, as them leaving after misplacing their vote shows they really didn't care about it.

So overall, I don't think an hour is too long to wait, but a half hour should be enough time for someone to fix their vote if they really care to do so. Omega Tyrant 09:55, 12 December 2010 (EST)

I'm mostly talking about people who only give ten minutes or so, but I agree with your general sentiment. Toomai Glittershine 13:00, 12 December 2010 (EST)

Comments

Could we perhaps have in the rules a guideline for what isn't acceptable to post in the comments section? Such as, some users seem to take the SA too seriously, and try to argue with someone on the other side for something they said. And with the SA being something for fun (and really nothing more), this detracts from it and has the potential to disrupt others. The Mario and Dr. Mario matchup experienced the beginning of an argument that had the potential to grow rapidly, but it was ended before it could escalate. The last matchup had argumentative statements aimed at other users, though they fortunately failed to cause anything more than a minor defensive response. And once again in this matchup, Doc King made an accusative claim towards an opposing side that could elicit a response and cause an unnecessary argument in the comments (or judging by the nature of the comment, a response from someone who doesn't even participate in the Smash Arena).

So basically, I suggest a guideline recommending people to not post argumentative or accusative claims towards someone else/the opposing side in the comments section. While arguments in the Smash Arena have been uncommon in the past, the surging popularity of the Smash Arena has led to, among many things, an increase in argumentative statements in the comments sections, and I wouldn't be surprised if two people who took the Smash Arena seriously started wall of texting against each other on the Smash Arena. Which of course, I doubt any of us would want here, and it would disrupt the Smash Arena, as well as the Wiki. While a guideline recommended this may not stop people from posting such (as we see the other rules broken often), it would allow someone else to step in and stop the potential argument with something in the rules backing them up (therefore, the one who posted the argumentative statement can't claim they can do such because nothing says they can't).

So, is this idea feasible? Does this recommendation not have enough historical backing to be put in the rules? Or is this recommendation simply too restrictive on the users who participate in the Smash Arena? Omega Tyrant 11:51, 12 December 2010 (EST)

I was thinking about a sort of "don't post comments if it might start an argument" rule; maybe I'll have a more solid idea later. Toomai Glittershine 13:00, 12 December 2010 (EST)

How about rule seven reads "Any comments about the fight should be left in the comment section. It is recommended that you do not post argumentative, accusative, or any sort of comment with the intention of starting an argument with someone on the opposing side. The Smash Arena is a popularity contest, there's no need to argue with the other side on why your favorite character is superior, or why they are wrong with their reasoning for picking their character."

If needed, the wording can be made stronger or softer, and the wording about the Smash Arena itself can be taken out. Omega Tyrant 23:51, 12 December 2010 (EST)

Bump Omega Tyrant 23:21, 20 December 2010 (EST)

I'm just wondering, but what would be the point of comments if we can't argue or debate about characters? That's pretty much the whole point of comments along with questions about the design of the battle, jokes, predictions, etc. Doc King (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (EST)

No, it is not. Its purpose is to make what the section is called, comments (along with questions). And you're being oblivious to what the Smash Arena is. As I said before (that you obviously ignored), the Smash Arena is a popularity contest, not a literal fight between characters or direct comparisons of effectiveness. There's no reason to "debate" about the characters, and having someone challenging you for liking a character sucks the fun out of voting on the Smash Arena. If you want to debate about characters and such, take it to Smashboards, not the Smash Arena. Omega Tyrant 19:21, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Execptions?

The first time around, the vote was signed. This time around, it wasn't. Should it be a half vote or not?--MegaTron1XD 11:26, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Falcon

I'm glad he's finally lost one. I love the guy as much as anyone, but it's just unfair with him winning every single match in the SA. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2010 (EST)

IP spamming

I'm thinking that the IP spamming is caused by the direct link from the main page. If the SA box were changed to go to Forum:Smash Arena instead, it would probably redirect the spamming there (the page can then be safely protected since voters never edit it), but it would cause users to take a two-link path to get to the arena itself. Opinions? Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 08:49, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Redirect the page to avoid the spamming. Better to take a little more time to keep the Wiki "clean" so to speak.MegaTron1XD 10:12, 28 December 2010 (EST)

The DKWiki had a similar vandal attack:

• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B
• Exhibit C

This guy must be spreading out. As far as I can tell he's done with DKWiki. But he makes proxies. Either way we link the main page, we're under attack. We just need to revert, protect and block (in that order). havoC-- 11:09, 28 December 2010 (EST)

In addition, I recommend protecting the archive pages, as I remember several ip attacks on them and since the only reason to edit it is gone, they have no reason.MegaTron1XD 12:03, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Problem with voting

I was trying to vote today on the Smash Arena however the option to edit the page has disappeared, meaning I cant vote at all. Why has this happened? 110.174.90.69 07:39, 2 January 2011 (EST)

It was heavily vandalised by anons so it was protected. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 07:44, 2 January 2011 (EST)

Seeing as I've done something to help against the spam I'll unprotect it now. Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 08:51, 2 January 2011 (EST)

Cluttering recent changes

Can there be a rule that states that any votes have to be minor edits? Because the Smash arena is clogging up recent changes, making it harder to keep track of actual edits. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2011 (EST)

There is a rule to try and do all your votes in one edit if it's a multi-battle round, though it's just as non-enforceable as a minor edit rule. Toomai Glittershine The Different 19:45, 27 February 2011 (EST)

I agree. What I've done to workaround is to focus on the non-Forum: namespace stuff: http://www.ssbwiki.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=100&invert=1 - Reboot (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2011 (EST)

It'll be as useful as the signature rule and the unnecessary comments preference. Several people will always ignore it. MegaTron1XD 21:10, 27 February 2011 (EST)

Account Creation

It's starting to seem like people are creating accounts only to gain representation when voting in the Smash Arena. Sometimes in the Recent Changes, I see someone making an account, voting in the Smash Arena soon afterwards, and staying online but doing nothing. Something, maybe making a rule, needs to be done about this. Brawlingbrian LANDMASTER! 16:24, 6 March 2011 (EST)

There are multiple users who really do nothing but edit their userpage and vote on the Smash Arena, but as long as they're not disrupting the Wiki, I see no real problem with it. Omega Tyrant 16:47, 6 March 2011 (EST)

This begs the question, though: what if people are sockpuppeting for this? Mr. Anon (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Show me a user who you suspect of sock puppeting. No user appears to be doing so, and I don't find this something to get paranoid over. Omega Tyrant 17:16, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Voting

If someone votes, they have to sign. But if they just type their name, does it count as a Half Vote then?--Wolf rulez! The best! 07:50, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes, someone must have a full signature (username and date) after each of their posts. Omega Tyrant 08:55, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

But what if you type date/time after it?--Wolf rulez! The best! 09:07, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Technically, typing your signature manually can be done, but if it not done correctly, they are still liable for not signing properly. Omega Tyrant 09:14, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Half votes

I feel it's perfectly fine for someone to want their vote to be a half vote if they feel it should be. If they vote correctly, someone casting their vote as a half vote does not harm/disrupt the Smash Arena. As I see it, the purpose of rule 10 is to prevent those from intentionally putting their votes in half votes thinking they won't have to sign their comment if they do so.

As such, rule 10 should be amended to "Do not put your vote in the Half-Votes section while intentionally voting incorrectly. It is basically saying "I want to be punished", and you will be treated accordingly with having your vote discounted." Omega Tyrant 20:46, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm neutral on the situation, but believe it should be counted as a normal vote until consensus is achieved. Omega Tyrant, you are free to ignore SW:1RV if you disagree. DoctorPain99 20:50, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree with OmegaTyrant here. If someone wants their vote to worth half (I don't know why they would), I see no reason in preventing them to. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

@Anon: The reason one would is if they like the two choices about the same and want to slightly support one, but don't want to cast a full vote for it. DoctorPain99 21:07, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

The intent of re-introducing half-votes was to provide a system of punishment for voting incorrectly. Therefore, I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of basically opening half-votes up as an intentional option; it breaks the duality of "good votes are 1.0, bad votes are 0.5" and adds an additional level of complexity for voters. I'd like to hear a few other peoples' opinions. Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 21:20, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

tbqh, is there a need for a user to make a half-vote intentionally? Even if you like something only slightly better, you should still cast a whole vote for it. Eh. I really don't care. Actually, I decided I do. In a presidential election, can you cast a half vote? No. If you like two candidates about the same, you have to cast an entire vote for one or don't vote at all. Also read what Piratehunter said. DoctorPain99 21:25, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree with DP, to an extent. Back on Wikitroid I went ape on people for voting on RfAs with positions such as "slightly disagree" and "disagree with RfA as written". I even blocked a couple people. Bottom line is, when you start allowing things other than Agree, Neutral, and Oppose, it is going to get chaotic. and You need the situation to remain in a way that can be seen and understood at a glance. --Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ (Talk•Contribs) 21:27, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

IRC discussion on this has caused me to change my mind. Saying "half vote" still means the voter supports one over the other, making it equal to a real vote. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

The Smash Arena and the presidential are two different things of vastly different scales; the former is a mere popularity contest on a Wiki with its outcome having no tangible results what so ever, while the latter is an election determines the leader of the country for the next four years. Comparing it to the presidential election is a bit much. Also keep in mind the presidential election has no "half vote" of any sort, so you really can't compare this situation in the Smash Arena to that.

Half votes still operates as a system of punishment to those who vote incorrectly, as the situation where someone wants their vote to count as a half vote is rare (this is the first instance I recall of someone intentionally putting their vote in the half votes while voting correctly). With about 99% of voters intending their votes to be full votes, I believe adjusting the rule to where the strict lettering does not forbid intentional correct half votes would not affect the flow/complexity of the Smash Arena at all. It's not like we're going to start up "quarter votes" or see a surge of people putting their votes in half votes.

In the instance where someone votes incorrectly in half votes, simply discount their vote all together, this is simple, right?

Also two things to keep in mind, what harm/disruption does it do to the Smash Arena with someone correctly putting their vote in the half vote section? And people can still technically vote in half votes intentionally by incorrectly voting in the normal vote area. So for these people, do we encourage them to place their vote incorrectly, where someone else will have to manually fix it, or let them place their vote in half votes, where the Smash Arena still flows perfectly fine?

The Smash Arena was made to be a thing of amusement to the users of the SmashWiki, why is it necessary to restrict them from wanting their vote be a half vote? Omega Tyrant 21:55, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

The "amusement" you speak of is brought by the results and the mere act of sharing one's opinion. The problem therein lies with not having a set principle as to how voting occurs. If you are to allow percentage-based votes such as %49.9999 Yes, then you are opening a floodgate that would make counting the ballots nearly impossible, or at least irrationally difficult. This is why you set simple positions to vote with such as: Agree for people who agree with whatever, Disagree for those who disagree, and Neutral for those whom either cannot decide or are merely stating that they will change to one of the logical positions pending the finale of the voting process. You are going to end up opening a bureaucratic mess with greater-quantum voting >_> --Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ (Talk•Contribs) 22:03, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

The available options are vote for option A or B, and half vote for option A or B, with the vote value being 1 and 0.5 respectively. This isn't complicated mathematics and won't lead to an irrationally difficult ballot to figure out (surely those handling the ballot could solve this math in their head).

Keep in mind half votes already exist, so by not forbidding "good votes" to be placed in there for a few who may want to, we're not adding another level of complexity when that level already exists, especially when the vast majority of the users aren't going to place their votes in there anyway.

And for one more thing, how are we going to punish "good votes" placed intentionally in half votes? Move them to full votes? While it may not be what the voter intended, it's not really a punishment in terms of the vote value. Or would we instead discount such votes all together? Doing the latter would give them a harsher punishment than the lazy who vote incorrectly, who of which are actually disruptive to the Smash Arena and create unnecessary work for others, unlike those who placed correctly done votes in half votes.

As for my proposal, we just amend rule 10 to where its lettering does not forbid correct votes being placed in half votes. We're not adding another vote option, we aren't going to add "quarter votes" or other vote options with complicated decimal values. In the end, we will have plain old 1.0 votes where the vast majority of votes go, and the half votes where bad votes go, as well as the votes of the few who feel their votes should be half votes for whatever reason. The option already exists, why would it disrupt the Smash Arena/SmashWiki to allow intentional votes there, and why create unnecessary extra work for the userbase when there are going to people out there who will break the rules to intentionally vote in this option?

If votes must be either worth 1 or 0, than remove the half vote option all together, and instead make all incorrect votes worth 0. Omega Tyrant 22:38, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

My point has been made. --Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ (Talk•Contribs) 22:44, 29 May 2011 (EDT)