Signature of the Month Contest Generic Discussion Thread

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Larthak

The May SOTM thread not being ready yet is a good example of this.

Speaking of this; is it only Solace than can start the entry thread ?

[Mike_Tha_Hero]

Oh, thats all cool. I was just saying, you guys had like 15 or so entries? Thats a lot compared to what I'm used to.

And I usually take a good 45 min. or so to make a sig. If some people need a month, thats understandable too.

I just thought it would be worth a shot because I get jittery and I like the week by week process more.

[Moonie]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Speaking of this; is it only Solace than can start the entry thread ?

If someone is allowed to, then I don't see a reason of a entry thread being made late in almost a week.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Speaking of this; is it only Solace than can start the entry thread ?

Originally Posted by Moonie

If someone is allowed to, then I don't see a reason of a entry thread being made late in almost a week.

Well, I could ask if others are interested, but I'll just remind everyone that this is volunteer work. Threads aren't always going to be up right away, votes aren't always going to be counted immediately, and entries might not always be finished exactly when the due date passes. If it isn't me it's someone else doing it in their spare time, and I doubt you'll find someone willing to stick around for the little over two years that I have.

Especially in a sig of the week format....the entire reason this is a monthly contest is because everyone would burn out four times as fast, organizers and contestants alike.

[ganbaru]

Do you need more volunteer for the SOTM ? Maybe I could help.

[CMHerrera]

Question can you enter a signature you already made? Before the theme was decided? I doubt it but might as well ask, to make sure.

[Solace]

As listed in the rules:

2D. Also in the spirit of originality, new signatures are encouraged. However, if you feel one of your older signatures is perfect for the theme and wish to enter it, you may. Just remember that the signature still has to follow the rules stated above.

[Kudryavka]

What kind of proof should I provide that I drew it?

[Larthak]

Originally Posted by Komari

What kind of proof should I provide that I drew it?

Gosh...I'm fascinated by this talk...why give proof? Are you going to shout "I TTLY DREW THIS!!1!" in the SOTM thread while posting your entry? If you just slap the entry there, nothing happens. You don't have to prove anything at all. This rule is simply meant for situations when a person uses a sig that is not his/her and someone else finds out about it (while browsing different forums or things like that), thus disqualifying him/her from SOTM.

And it did happen a few times, so the rule has its meaning.

[Kudryavka]

Originally Posted by Larthak

Gosh...I'm fascinated by this talk...why give proof? Are you going to shout "I TTLY DREW THIS!!1!" in the SOTM thread while posting your entry? If you just slap the entry there, nothing happens. You don't have to prove anything at all. This rule is simply meant for situations when a person uses a sig that is not his/her and someone else finds out about it (while browsing different forums or things like that), thus disqualifying him/her from SOTM.

And it did happen a few times, so the rule has its meaning.

Yes I was, just spelled correctly and without Caps Cruise Control.

[Larthak]

Originally Posted by Komari

Yes I was, just spelled correctly and without Caps Cruise Control.

May I ask why you'd do that, for curiosity's sake? If I were to use my own draws in sigs, I wouldn't have the immediate urge to say it's all mine. But hey, people are different, it's just that I can't seem to find a good reason. I mean, it's not like people can reverse engineer the draw from a highly customized sig undamaged so that anybody could steal your work.

So, why exactly?

[felix]

Has the possibility of having votes with points been discussed?

For example: at times I want to vote for more then 3, but other times I want to vote for less then 3. So you could give everyone 3.0 points to place on entries. Everyone is allowed to give at most 1.5 for any entry, but can give as little as they want, as long as the total = 3.0 points. So, assuming entries are A to Z you can vote A: 1.5pt, B: 0.5pt, C: 0.3pt, D: 0.2pt, F: 0.5pt.

Or something like that. The idea is to make the voting phase more creative/subjective. Right now it's a little too much like "post-and-forget" and the thread is not that interesting until the counts are in.

[Solace]

So basically, weighted votes? Sounds a bit complicated to do by hand every month. From the voters perspective, it might be confusing versus the current "pick up to three" system.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Solace

Sounds a bit complicated to do by hand every month.

Arguably you shouldn't be doing it by hand now either. I can make a tool to help you with counting, but why aren't you using NightWish's voting counter thing? Didn't he finish it?

Originally Posted by Solace

From the voters perspective, it might be confusing versus the current "pick up to three" system.

They can stick to the current simple system. Using points can be optional.

• you vote 3 sigs then they all get 1pt each
• you vote for 2 sigs they get 1.5pt each
• you vote for one 1.5pt for it

The problem I see with the current system is actually the hole "pick 3" thing. Can you answer me why exactly it's "pick 3"? Looking at the general voting pattern if you had people pick 2 or pick 4, you would get completely different results. Picking anything more then 1 should be weighted. Speaking of which, why not pick 1 anyway? would certainly make your life easier.

[Larthak]

Originally Posted by felix

Arguably you shouldn't be doing it by hand now either. I can make a tool to help you with counting, but why aren't you using NightWish's voting counter thing? Didn't he finish it?

They can stick to the current simple system. Using points can be optional.

• you vote 3 sigs then they all get 1pt each
• you vote for 2 sigs they get 1.5pt each
• you vote for one 1.5pt for it

The problem I see with the current system is actually the hole "pick 3" thing. Can you answer me why exactly it's "pick 3"? Looking at the general voting pattern if you had people pick 2 or pick 4, you would get completely different results. Picking anything more then 1 should be weighted. Speaking of which, why not pick 1 anyway? would certainly make your life easier.

...

Please, no changes for the sake of changes.

The current system works and I can't seem to find any flaws in it. In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Another point being, picking three best entries is hard enough as it is, don't complicate it even more by adding the weight element to our votes. Then I'd have to wonder "Does this entry deserve 0.3 points more? Or how about I take 0.1 from this one and add 0.4 to that one?! Oh, the possibilities!! Let me just spend the whole afternoon with this problem."

As to why it's "pick 3", well...all the competitions use this as the universal rule. Why be different? I guess that's our case as well.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Larthak

Please, no changes for the sake of changes.

What is this some kind of cheap personal attack, or bait? If you are such a guru go ahead and explain to me the great merits of the current system, rather then just act like you're smarter then everyone. I'm not going to debate with such shallow and subjective circular nonsense.

Originally Posted by Larthak

The current system works and I can't seem to find any flaws in it. In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Like I said it's very plausible, given past results, that in our current system if we had 4 picks the result would be different, and if we had 2 picks it would be different still; and nothing to suggest that since we have 3 we are getting a accurate result. Basically the 3-pick is like a fancy coin toss with some truth to it. Are we picking the best? or the one that falls the most on peoples multi-sided dice; since there is no such thing as 3 "the best". Assuming we're not trolled just 1 of the votes go to the entry that people want to win and the other 2 can be just about anything, they might not even necessarily be in the top 3, given the entire meta properties of having 3 for vote.

Originally Posted by Larthak

Another point being, picking three best entries is hard enough as it is, don't complicate it even more by adding the weight element to our votes. Then I'd have to wonder "Does this entry deserve 0.3 points more? Or how about I take 0.1 from this one and add 0.4 to that one?! Oh, the possibilities!! Let me just spend the whole afternoon with this problem."

As I explained you can just keep voting as you have. Adding weight to votes is perfectly compatible with the current system. Also, I don't think laziness when voting should be a factor. Almost every other forum either uses the 1-pick-poll or some form of weighted system. Typically the post your votes in order (first = best) method of assigning weight works better since it's easier to use but it wouldn't be compatible with how voting currently works, so would be harder transition.

Originally Posted by Larthak

As to why it's "pick 3", well...all the competitions use this as the universal rule. Why be different? I guess that's our case as well.

"self-fulfilling prophecy" When you vote, you vote for the ONE, not the 3. We don't have 3 winners. Do you have 3 presidents? No, you don't.

Also, you didn't answer why 1-pick is so bad. It should still be easier to count, assuming you don't want to use a poll. And people are more enthusiastic when they have just one person to root for. 3 is just a mood-killer. I wonder if people can even remember the 3 they voted for...

[Larthak]

Originally Posted by felix

What is this some kind of cheap personal attack, or bait? If you are such a guru go ahead and explain to me the great merits of the current system, rather then just act like you're smarter then everyone. I'm not going to debate with such shallow and subjective circular nonsense.

What? No...I didn't try to...bah. What I meant is; I just don't see the motivating factor for a change. I'd completely understand if SOTM was in the testing phase, or if people were not content with the current system, thus brainstorming innovative ways to improve it. Let's just say I have difficulties finding out why you propose this. But then again, it might just be your love for the community, seeing how often you try to improve several aspects of AniSuki. No irony there, it's admirable.

Originally Posted by felix

Like I said it's very plausible, given past results, that in our current system if we had 4 picks the result would be different, and if we had 2 picks it would be different still; and nothing to suggest that since we have 3 we are getting a accurate result. Basically the 3-pick is like a fancy coin toss with some truth to it.

For some people, 1 might not be enough. Sometimes, there's more than one amazing entry and you, as a voter, might get stuck thinking which one to choose. And it's not like we can't vote just one or two entries. I myself have used the right to vote for less than 3 entries, if I felt the theme's quality was not met.

Originally Posted by felix

Are we picking the best? or the one that falls the most on peoples multi-sided dice; since there is no such thing as 3 "the best". Assuming we're not trolled just 1 of the votes go to the entry that people want to win and the other 2 can be just about anything, they might not even necessarily be in the top 3, given the entire meta properties of having 3 for vote..

Well, how can we define the best, really? It's as subjective as it can get. Some people get votes for visual quality, some for the idea, some gather votes just for being popular within the community (Just like people admire Picasso's work. Well, I don't, I see no value in it, seems horrible to me. Know what I mean?). If people vote for all three just for the heck of it, not actually caring that much, then it's a problem with them, not with the system. But since people even add honorable mentions, you can see that even three almost isn't enough for some. Or they're just indecisive, but I'm not the one to judge that.

Originally Posted by felix

As I explained you can just keep voting as you have. Adding weight to votes is perfectly compatible with the current system. Also, I don't think laziness when voting should be a factor. Almost every other forum either uses the 1-pick-poll or some form of weighted system. Typically the post your votes in order (first = best) method of assigning weight works better since it's easier to use but it wouldn't be compatible with how voting currently works, so would be harder transition.

Well then, try some research. Doesn't seem like most participants are even interested enough to join this discussion so far (though it's still early). We can talk here all we want, but that won't help much. How about poking a few SOTM regulars' profiles, asking for their opinion? You know, if you're that serious about it. =)

Originally Posted by felix

"self-fulfilling prophecy" When you vote, you vote for the ONE, not the 3. We don't have 3 winners. Do you have 3 presidents? No, you don't.

Also, you didn't answer why 1-pick is so bad. It should still be easier to count, assuming you don't want to use a poll. And people are more enthusiastic when they have just one person to root for. 3 is just a mood-killer. I wonder if people can even remember the 3 they voted for...

I didn't answer why 1-pick is bad, since I don't think it is. I only doubted vote weighting. Well, I may not remember the people behind their entries, but I do remember those entries I voted for. As it should be, imho...rating the art, not the artist.

[White Manju Bun]

Originally Posted by felix

What is this some kind of cheap personal attack, or bait? If you are such a guru go ahead and explain to me the great merits of the current system, rather then just act like you're smarter then everyone. I'm not going to debate with such shallow and subjective circular nonsense.

Careful there, youre almost sounding like youre baiting just to bait. Sounds like you wanted to argue either way on the subject no matter who replied.

I agree with Larthak, changes made for the sake of changing arent normally viewed as a good thing. Again if its not broke dont fix it and like Solace pointed out itll probably be more complicated for the counters.

If we had tons of ties every month, I might suggest we change the current format but we dont and why after over a year and half (maybe even more since I dont remember when SOTM started) bring this up now?

When you vote, you vote for the ONE, not the 3. We don't have 3 winners. Do you have 3 presidents? No, you don't.

Are you really comparing SOTM to the Electoral College? I think that actually has more flaws then SOTM voting.

[felix]

Originally Posted by White Manju Bun

Careful there, youre almost sounding like youre baiting just to bait. Sounds like you wanted to argue either way on the subject no matter who replied.

I agree with Larthak, changes made for the sake of changing arent normally viewed as a good thing.

I didn't say anything about making the change for the sake of change! Can you and Larthak please stop trying to poke me with this. I even asked if there was any other discussion on the subject, and also brought arguments of why it is bad and doesn't work. I also asked what the reasoning behind it was, and I've yet to hear anyone do anything more then avoid the question.

Originally Posted by White Manju Bun

Again if its not broke dont fix it and like Solace pointed out itll probably be more complicated for the counters.

A broken clock is right 2 times a day, so why fix it right?

Well, "is harder for the counters" the only problem you all have? (not sarcasm)

Originally Posted by White Manju Bun

If we had tons of ties every month, I might suggest we change the current format

Hint 1: there's almost always 3 people competing for 1st.
Hint 2: we have so-called "ninja voting"

Originally Posted by White Manju Bun

but we dont and why after over a year and half (maybe even more since I dont remember when SOTM started) bring this up now?

What do you mean? What's wrong with "the now"? For all we know the contest will run for many more years; no reason not to fix it. This entire phase takes a good chunk of the schedule too and is arguably just as important as everything else. If there's a pothole in the road do you think there's some time frame after which it's illegal to fix it? I don't understand.

Originally Posted by White Manju Bun

Are you really comparing SOTM to the Electoral College? I think that actually has more flaws then SOTM voting.

Electoral what? But anyway, name those flaws (and how the current system in SotM doesn't have them). I've yet to hear any good non-subjective reason behind choosing 3; given that's really the only difference.

Originally Posted by Larthak

Well then, try some research. Doesn't seem like most participants are even interested enough to join this discussion so far (though it's still early). We can talk here all we want, but that won't help much. How about poking a few SOTM regulars' profiles, asking for their opinion? You know, if you're that serious about it. =)

There's a reason why some people here are called "contest organizers".

[Suomi]

Anyone want to collaborate w/me for this month's contest?

(I believe this goes here...)