A word about insufferable elitism within the osu!-community

posted
Total Posts
70
show more
Jukkii
preach n0thingspecial. you said what i wanted to try and say in a really good way.
i think that red like roses shouldnt be loved, because that would be kinda pointless, it hold no value. basically what endaris said but id like to add a little to it.
the map getting loved just gets like leaderboards...
who do you think is gonna fill those leaderboards? definitely not the 100ks that voted for it.
the "elitists" will play it to show that they are superior to the 100ks, not cause they love it. and even if a 100k gets like 5000/6000 rank on the map its definitely not as important as the ones in top 50. it would cause even worse elitism.
Stefan
Guys, it's about to click

the

circles.


What the fuck, the category has been added to give maps which are unsuitable for the rank status an own leaderboard and to give the attention to the public audience they deserve. If someone dislikes the beatmap because <put any random reason> then let them be, holy crap. The category is dedicated is widely dedicated for the high tier players and for a little part of the other gimmick-related beatmaps (such as Fake It).

If you can't accept people calling said beatmap as shit, you're not better than the guys complaining about the choices. But go ahead and destroy the purpose of the category.
N0thingSpecial
Oh yea and I think that the voting system itself is flawed. Having a larger percentage doesn't always mean it's more popular, it's just the larger minority liking the map there's still several other groups of minority who indirectly oppose that 1 larger minority. So calling it communities choice was kinda misleading

But hey forum voting system is limited ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
winber1
umm, its either yes or no, so there is a majority and a minority. whether or not that majority is the "acitve" population of forum posters/"good players" is another question, but technically speaking they are still part of the "community"

it's not like you can just exclude them for being new
Yuudachi-kun
Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
N0thingSpecial

winber1 wrote:

umm, its either yes or no, so there is a majority and a minority. whether or not that majority is the "acitve" population of forum posters/"good players" is another question, but technically speaking they are still part of the "community"

it's not like you can just exclude them for being new
OK extreme situation but my point is that lets say there's 3 maps for loved and you can only cast on vote, and he results are two maps with 33%, and one map with 34%, in the current system the map with 34% would be in the love section, but technically there's 66% of the voters oppose that one map being loved, so despite being the "majority" it's not an accurate representation of what the community wants
Eraser
Well, the voting system is temporary anyways. It will be replaced with a better system in the future.
winber1

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
arguably more worthwhile than browsing classic G&R shitposts and repeated questions

man idk why i still browse this shit

fuck
Flimsy

N0thingSpecial wrote:

I mean just look at how democracy worked out for UK when they voted to leave EU.
Lol? Looks like it turned out pretty well.

It's not suddenly bad when you don't get it your way. Not even making a stance on Brexit, but this example is actually just silly.

What's with forums mostly composed of anime fans / weeaboos and making really out-of-touch with reality comparisons to voting on a game where the end result still means nothing? Hitler, ISIS, Drugs, Brexit. It's really something. Tune into next time where we compare low ranked players voting on a fun-intended category to eugenics and who is and isn't allowed to do something based on some subjective stance.
M3ATL0V3R

N0thingSpecial wrote:

OK extreme situation but my point is that lets say there's 3 maps for loved and you can only cast on vote, and he results are two maps with 33%, and one map with 34%, in the current system the map with 34% would be in the love section, but technically there's 66% of the voters oppose that one map being loved, so despite being the "majority" it's not an accurate representation of what the community wants
They don't always oppose the map being loved, they usually just prefer it over another. If the community could instead rated the maps by 1-10 rather than there being a binary vote or not vote you would see a different story.

KtkC wrote:

If you want to split up LOVED, that's a fine idea as well.
1. (Experienced Choice - top x000 players' votes only, or from a designated panel of users)
2. (Community - anyone can vote)
I like this idea

-Jukke- wrote:

who do you think is gonna fill those leaderboards?
They may not fill the top of the boards but that doesn't mean they don't use them to compete with their friends. Though I agree that the better players probably use the boards more.

Stefan wrote:

What the fuck, the category has been added to give maps which are unsuitable for the rank status an own leaderboard and to give the attention to the public audience they deserve
Good point, public attention is the other important purpose of the loved category that more competitive players probably forget. This loved category isn't ranked and is more about maps the community likes rather than competitive maps that are unable to be ranked.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

do these people actually like the map for the right reason?
Then the follow up question is how can you tell? I think this aspect of voting is ignored because there is no real way to factor this into the system without it losing its democraticness.

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
Oh look another khelly post adding nothing to the discussion.
Backfire
Yall wild 😂👌🏻
Yuudachi-kun

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
Oh look another khelly post adding nothing to the discussion.
You think I care about whether or not I'm adding to this meaningless discussion whose only purpose is to just incite meaningless G&R shit

I'm just here to point out that: This is like the 4th time Railey feels like he has to do this
M3ATL0V3R

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

You think I care about whether or not I'm adding to this meaningless discussion whose only purpose is to just incite meaningless G&R shit

I'm just here to point out that: This is like the 4th time Railey feels like he has to do this
Fair enough, I understand if you don't want to get involved. Though the actual points discussed is interesting if the drama is disregarded.
Full Tablet

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

N0thingSpecial wrote:

OK extreme situation but my point is that lets say there's 3 maps for loved and you can only cast on vote, and he results are two maps with 33%, and one map with 34%, in the current system the map with 34% would be in the love section, but technically there's 66% of the voters oppose that one map being loved, so despite being the "majority" it's not an accurate representation of what the community wants
They don't always oppose the map being loved, they usually just prefer it over another. If the community could instead rated the maps by 1-10 rather than there being a binary vote or not vote you would see a different story.
The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).

Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).

Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
M3ATL0V3R

Full Tablet wrote:

The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).

Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).

Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
That is a good system for a small candidate pool but when many maps are considered 1-10 is best. If every person had do list their preference for every map over each other it would be exhausting for the participants. That's why they use the 1-10 system on myanimelist, imdb, etc
Full Tablet

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

Full Tablet wrote:

The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).

Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).

Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
That is a good system for a small candidate pool but when many maps are considered 1-10 is best. If every person had do list their preference for every map over each other it would be exhausting for the participants. That's why they use the 1-10 system on myanimelist, imdb, etc
Including everyone on the list in each vote is not mandatory
M3ATL0V3R

Full Tablet wrote:

Including everyone on the list in each vote is not mandatory
Ok i guess its better then, my bad.
repr1se
Let's be real. There's going to be drama (read: cancer) where Internet users are allowed to disagree.
M3ATL0V3R

Full Tablet wrote:

The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).

Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).

Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
Maybe a better system would be a combination of both systems. 1-10 is simpler for the voters but gives unequal power in some situations. If however the 1-10 rating list of each user was converted into an equivalent STV preference list this system would have the advantages of both systems. Simple and fair.
N0thingSpecial
M3ATL0V3R you're solo carrying this thread to 10 pages
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply