Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Fix It Yet another way to fix Itembuildr
Poll: Should voting for submitters be disabled?
You must be logged in to vote.

Amiskoh

Avatar: Halloween Pumpkin
5

Level 13 Troll

“Pain in the ASCII”

I thought about a new Idea , instead of Fingerz offer to eliminate downvoting completely , which would create a mbumive mess. Why not instead not let the submitters of ideas vote on others ideas. that way there could be no “Blind” Voting without using illegal actions.

Post what you think and vote in pole.

Sergeant Cid

MODERATOR
Avatar: 167814 2011-07-31 00:46:27 -0400

[The Airship]

Level 35 Re-Re

Scientifically Proven Terrible fabulous person..... Evidence shows mbumive build up of semen deposit in bum.

No, this is not a good idea. There’s no reason to disqualify submitters from voting, and it wouldn’t have any appreciable effect on vote collusion. Instead of 20 people conspiring, it would simply mean 19 people conspiring. And it also wouldn’t do anything to stop illegal alts.

In other words, this adds nothing of value to the process.

SanDyk

Avatar: 175636 2012-01-01 09:50:12 -0500
21

[Grey Goose Mafiosi]

Level 69 Troll

I am the internet equivelent of Jon Stewart! Except less funny...

Amiskoh Posted:

Post what you think and vote in pole.

jest odurzoną ideą

­

­

­

(That’s polish for “There is stupid idea” )

­

I don’t really get why this would “improve” itembuildr. Seeing as the people who play itembuildr tend to be the majority of people who vote in itembuildr this would most likely cause all items to stay at the same number if none of the submitters are allowed to vote Log in to see images!

SanDyk

Avatar: 175636 2012-01-01 09:50:12 -0500
21

[Grey Goose Mafiosi]

Level 69 Troll

I am the internet equivelent of Jon Stewart! Except less funny...

I think the best solution I’ve heard is remove the “-5 removes the sub” bit

In Spite Of

Avatar: 23493 2011-10-31 20:46:14 -0400
26

[And The Banned Pla-
yed On
]

Level 60 Emo Kid

The Delightfully Chaotic

Check out this “wild” idea.

Remove the “down” vote option. Only options are “Pbum” and “Upvote”.

Whoever has the highest score…wins! It’s amazing.

In Spite Of

Avatar: 23493 2011-10-31 20:46:14 -0400
26

[And The Banned Pla-
yed On
]

Level 60 Emo Kid

The Delightfully Chaotic

handofg0d Posted:

Check out this “wild” idea.

Remove the “down” vote option. Only options are “Pbum” and “Upvote”.

Whoever has the highest score…wins! It’s amazing.

Sounds too complicated to work and/or implement.

Johnny Mac

Avatar: 37704 2011-07-31 00:49:39 -0400
35

[Full of SbumSS]

Level 35 Troll

hot horse great times lover

Try things for a day.

Doesn’t work too well? Try something new.

Works well? GREAT!

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

handofg0d Posted:

Sounds too complicated to work and/or implement.

Sounds more like there’s no way to make a distinction between “meh” and “do not like”. As the system is now, there’s 3 levels of vote; +1, -1 and 0. If you take away -1 then you weaken the net effect of each voter on the relative scores.

Maybe that’d be a good thing, but I think I’d rather see the relative effect stay as it is, and just have the negative scores uncapped. The problem right now is that subs can be -5ed within minutes of voting opening, so that the majority of voters never get to see them or vote for them. If you just don’t remove them then even if there’s a mbum-downvote the rest of the itembuildr players can redress the balance.

man-man edited this message on 10/17/2009 8:05PM

In Spite Of

Avatar: 23493 2011-10-31 20:46:14 -0400
26

[And The Banned Pla-
yed On
]

Level 60 Emo Kid

The Delightfully Chaotic

I don’t see the point of downvoting in itembuilder.

The rounds are shorter, the entries are way less. There’s no need to downvote to weed them out. Someone getting -5’d or -100’d isn’t going to change the fact that they lost.

If theres only a positive and a pbum vote option, there will only be votes for the ones that are good, no votes if they aren’t good. If something is obviously terrible it will just stay at 0.

People who are participating won’t be able to downvote everyone, but have the option to upvote those they feel might be worthy or better than their own (yeah right nobody on this site is going to do that but hey, options there)

There will still be a clear winner, with the highest score.

mterek

Avatar: 192622 2009-09-24 16:39:01 -0400
18

[mahjong]

Level 69 Re-Re

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

handofg0d Posted:

If theres only a positive and a pbum vote option, there will only be votes for the ones that are good, no votes if they aren’t good. If something is obviously terrible it will just stay at 0.

There’s two caveats to that. 1) You bumume people vote for good subs, and 2) There are no spam entries.

For some people, there’s nothing funnier than successfully trolling a bunch of other people with a low cost prank. itembuildr has shown time and again that there is a dedicated bloc of these people, but the threat of their trolling is neutralized by killing their entries earlier on, thus limiting the potential exposure.

If entries are pruned, that limits the ability for these people to troll. The worst they can do is downvote an entry they don’t want to win, which does nothing if there are no entries they want to win left.

There’s usually 50 voters who participate in a typical itembuildr round, and in the first couple hours about 8 people vote, enough to kill off the spam entries early on. If those spam entries never die, and instead go the whole 12 hours of voting, they’re more likely to win than if they were eliminated at the start.

The only real problem I have with itembuildr is that it biases against truly creative entries. One could make an item that is legitimately funny to a general audience, but it’ll get downvoted for any number of reasons – jealousy, competition, or simply not finding it funny. To win, one has to appease the voters, so the entries converge on more mediocre submissions. Some good ones get by, but it’s not the norm.

In Spite Of

Avatar: 23493 2011-10-31 20:46:14 -0400
26

[And The Banned Pla-
yed On
]

Level 60 Emo Kid

The Delightfully Chaotic

If there is no downvote the option is to either vote for good entires, or dont vote at all, basically. So we’d either see nobody voting, or the good (or in some cases, least ****ty) entries would get votes.

As far as the spam – shrug, moderation? I mean, how hard would it be for a mod to look through a list of submissions every other day and clear off the spam?

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

handofg0d Posted:

As far as the spam – shrug, moderation? I mean, how hard would it be for a mod to look through a list of submissions every other day and clear off the spam?

p sure I asked for this ability but was never given it.

Mods can see who made submissions, though (at least if they aren’t downvoted out before they saw it). So they could set up “no spamming” rules and throw Phineas at it for consistency. Then they could ban people who submit ****. But unless ET codes “remove this entry” capability for mods, it still means finding an admin to do it. And with only ET being the admin, that’s probably asking too much Log in to see images!

mterek

Avatar: 192622 2009-09-24 16:39:01 -0400
18

[mahjong]

Level 69 Re-Re

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

handofg0d Posted:

If there is no downvote the option is to either vote for good entires, or dont vote at all, basically.

Again, you’re bumuming people only vote for good entries. There’s plenty of people who would upvote wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww posts just for the lightning-strike chance of them winning, since it is both funny and makes a political statement.

handofg0d Posted:

As far as the spam – shrug, moderation? I mean, how hard would it be for a mod to look through a list of submissions every other day and clear off the spam?

Moderation would only curb the obviously spam entries, but not the problem of horrible ideas. If mods discriminate based on items they personally don’t like, that violates the point of itembuildr (community voting/participation) and it is very likely to frustrate people. If six people say an item sucks, the community has spoken so it’s back to the drawing board. But if one powerful person happens to not like an item enough to remove it, the submitter is clearly going to feel singled out because his/her entry didn’t appeal to the right person.

Like with improving 4chan, change begins with the community members. If enough people vote fairly in itembuildr, and outnumber the trolls, the item quality will increase. In a case where there’s almost as many trolls as there are legitimate voters, winning basically amounts to little more than a lottery.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!