lexmark's Feed

lexmark
09-14-2018 at 02:37 AM
44 Comments
Rate this Entry

What's your definition of a BLIND voter?

Just wondering.

I'm guessing most would say the supposed obvious, that being, someone that doesn't watch the videos?

Can anyone explain/offer a definition?



john


.



LikesBarthax liked this post
Comments
  1. Barthax's Avatar

    Yeah, basically not reviewing the evidence - just hitting Yes.

  2. lexmark's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax

    Yeah, basically not reviewing the evidence - just hitting Yes.


    My reply below isn't specifically aimed at Barthax. Just saying.


    Sometimes relevant evidence is/was elsewhere, but adjudicators weren't expert enough to realise. For example, Dons original Dig Dug. I reviewed the evidence on that one, and deemed the score valid, others said it wasn't, because most the game play was missing. I contend that others that voted no actually BLIND voted that submission. As became obvious.


    Is there some expertise to "just hitting yes" on some submissions ?



    john


    .


  3. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by lexmark



    My reply below isn't specifically aimed at Barthax. Just saying.


    Sometimes relevant evidence is/was elsewhere, but adjudicators weren't expert enough to realise. For example, Dons original Dig Dug. I reviewed the evidence on that one, and deemed the score valid, others said it wasn't, because most the game play was missing. I contend that others that voted no actually BLIND voted that submission. As became obvious.


    Is there some expertise to "just hitting yes" on some submissions ?



    john


    .




    Hmmm... if the evidence is not presented in the TGSAP system, it is not evidence that should be considered as part of the achievement. However, external references are often required to understand circumstances. In Don's case, It wasn't that a technical hiccup occured but instead the evidence was purposefully incomplete. I seem to recall the base pros & cons were hashed out quite well in that thread.

  4. Barthax's Avatar

    Found it: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/146913-Arcade-Dig-Dug-Points-Marathon-5-429-010-Donald-Hayes

    In Don's submission text he explains:

    The video does contain the first 19 boards in their entirety, followed by 5-second still clips showing the score at the beginning of each round from round 2 through round 255. After that section are the complete snippets of round 136 (the round where all the monsters literally stop in their tunnels) and round 255 into the kill screen followed by post-game procedures (showing the settings through the test switch, the inside of the game, and the control panel). Greg Bond was present for most of the day to witness the performance.


    Based on this description of the circumstance, all "accept" votes except for Greg & Don are "blind" in that there is insufficient evidence to confirm. However, this sort of blind is very different from the usual use of the term Blind Vote, IMO. This is "blind belief" rather than "not reviewing".

    Thanksbensweeneyonbass thanked this post
  5. lexmark's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax

    Found it: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/146913-Arcade-Dig-Dug-Points-Marathon-5-429-010-Donald-Hayes

    In Don's submission text he explains:



    Based on this description of the circumstance, all "accept" votes except for Greg & Don are "blind" in that there is insufficient evidence to confirm. However, this sort of blind is very different from the usual use of the term Blind Vote, IMO. This is "blind belief" rather than "not reviewing".


    Thanks, Andrew. Interesting. I want to reply to what you said, but will wait for some other opinions/thoughts to my question (what's your definition of a blind voter)



    john


    .

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  6. lexmark's Avatar

    I wonder if reviewing the video at double speed, then clicking YES or NO would be considered blind voting ?



    john


    .

  7. bensweeneyonbass's Avatar

    Dang Petric you’re on another level. Watching videos in fast mode is still watching the video.


    Let Don’s Dig Dug go. Let it go. Calling no voters on that (because evidence was missing) blind voters? Yikes. You’re a special kind of thinker.

  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    These semantics are interesting and I recently thought of then but didn’t think it was worth arguing now that you’ve given me an in though I’ll gladly elaborate and I think the dig dug example is the sort of thing I wanna being it up


    While typically yes blind voting means just mass accepting knowing most things can go through things like dig dug is a real grey area. Or better yet what if don did have fully video but you trusted him enough you saw no need to view it. At the time you votes blind to the actual hard evidence but is not reputation also evidence? We use witness testimony in court with no other evidence all the time.


    While I would call such a thing blind faith I wouldn’t call it blind voting. I refer to blind voting as people just playing the odds trying to bump their cred without even caring about the evidence

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  9. Snowflake's Avatar

    Oh and considering dons full 12 your video went through in three days I find it hard to believe that many people watched the whole thing in such short time. I also doubt everyone who voted yes on my 40 hrs asteroids in just a few days watched it all even taking into account some caught parts of it live steamed. Not complaining I accept that y’all love and trust me so damn much that you’ll approve whatever I do, just noticing and commenting is all

    LikesBarthax liked this post
  10. Snowflake's Avatar

    to elaborate even further, jace has said we can take reputation into account, and while i'm not a fan of that for multiple reasons i've laid out before, i at aleast understand his point. The offensive blind voting, the real reason for the complain (at least in my opinion since i cant read others minds) is lazy voters getting high credibility quickly, and then using that powerful credibility to vote incorrectly on things they have no clue about.

    by the way, something else much more rare is "blind commentes", you know people who leave a comment that clearly didnt watch the video or read any other comments. I've seen captain obvous repeated as if it was the first time, questions asked that were already answered, points made that were already debunked (to be fair, in arguments we soemtiems repeat ourselves so that alone doesnt prove blind commenting). I've even posted video, pointed out what i did in the video, explained how i did it, only to have some hot shot who allegedly watched the video argue with me and tell me thats impossible despite his comment claiming its impossible being on a video that shows it happening.

  11. GibGirl's Avatar

    I'd say it's not just voting without watching, but voting without having sufficient expertise to be able to at least make a semi-informed decision. I don't mean to single out anyone, but some of the WiiU Angry Birds submissions that lacked the information to make it clear that the level played matched the track, for example. I didn't know enough to be able to comfortably adjudicate since I didn't know it was the correct level, so I didn't vote. If I had, I'd say it was effectively blind voting.

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  12. Snowflake's Avatar

    @GibGirl thx you put into words better than i could. I think your wording helped push me more to better express what i mean. Yes blind voting, might be better called ignorant voting. Voting when you know that you dont know, but also dont care. I think the most obvous cases come from not watching, but not watching in and of itself was never the issue, so much as the willful ignorance of voting on things that people knew they didnt knowabout

    LikesGibGirl liked this post
  13. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    My strict definition of blind voting is casting a vote without review of evidence or comments. In most cases, its a yes vote since the majority of submission pass. In general, someone who casts blind votes is more interested in accumulating submission points rather than boosting credibility. If someone casts 100 yes votes blindly, their 'right' ~ 95 times. They now have future submission of their own by just clicking the yes button 100 times. They'll take a hit on credibility for the 'wrong' votes but if their motivation is to submit their own scores or accumulate enough submission points to subsidies the cost of a certificate, why would they care about a credibility rating.


    A broader definition of blind voting could include being more selective on submissions to cast 'Yes' votes and monitoring other adjudicator comments and cancel submission queue. This will give them a better "right" vote % and limit the credibility hits from casting 'incorrect' votes. Since this methode still doesn't require reviewing any submission evidence, it still blind voting.

    ThanksHugDD thanked this post
    LikesSnowflake, HugDD, stella_blue liked this post
  14. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl

    some of the WiiU Angry Birds submissions that lacked the information to make it clear that the level played matched the track, for example. I didn't know enough to be able to comfortably adjudicate since I didn't know it was the correct level, so I didn't vote. If I had, I'd say it was effectively blind voting.


    The info is always there in the Angry Birds submissions, sometimes it's just a little harder to see. In almost all angry birds games, the info of the level is displayed every time you reset the level. In other cases, you can only tell by watching closely the level selection screen (which has to be shown). Since this devices are touch activated, there is not a border surrounding the level you are about to select, but rather you just touch it and the button would look like it has been pushed for just a fragment of a second. It's very subtle but still visible.

  15. lexmark's Avatar

    Blind voting isn't as easy as you might think it is.

    Here's an example............

    As an experiment I decided to randomly vote YES on a submission that was chosen by an online random number generator. The parameters I set was for it to choose a number between 0 and 1383. 1383 being the number of submissions in the queue. It chose a number and I went to that submission and clicked the YES button.

    I'm not going to change or monitor my vote.

    I'll let you know what happened when the submission passes or fails. My current cred is 22969

    Was that a BLIND vote ?



    john



  16. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by lexmark


    I'm not going to change or monitor my vote.

    I'll let you know what happened when the submission passes or fails. My current cred is 22969

    Was that a BLIND vote ?



    john




    If you are gonna let us know what happened then you are going to monitor your vote.


    Yes it was a blind vote.

  17. lexmark's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola



    If you are gonna let us know what happened then you are going to monitor your vote.


    Yes it was a blind vote.


    No I'm not going to monitor my vote, Ill monitor my notifications.



    john


    .

    ThanksPixe Sukola thanked this post
  18. Snowflake's Avatar

    Semantics aside I’m not sure what your sample size of 1 proves

  19. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by lexmark

    Blind voting isn't as easy as you might think it is.

    Here's an example............

    As an experiment I decided to randomly vote YES on a submission that was chosen by an online random number generator. The parameters I set was for it to choose a number between 0 and 1383. 1383 being the number of submissions in the queue. It chose a number and I went to that submission and clicked the YES button.

    I'm not going to change or monitor my vote.

    I'll let you know what happened when the submission passes or fails. My current cred is 22969

    Was that a BLIND vote ?



    john




    ...what are you trying to demonstrate here? What's the hypothesis you're testing?


    Also, that's clearly a blind vote. You voted on a submission without evaluating the evidence.

  20. lexmark's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    Semantics aside I’m not sure what your sample size of 1 proves


    The sample size of one wasnt meant to prove anything (yet) it was to illustrate the question of if that method was a blind vote?


    Currently two members say it was a blind vote.


    john



Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Join us