(no subject)

If Burn Unit votes for a lot of tasks, it's his way of playing the game, you can't penalise him for that.

(no subject)

Agreed.

Also, if you looked at the tasks they voted for - why didn't you vote for all of the ones you approve of yourself?

(no subject)

How does the way you would have voted outline your beliefs? Have you gained any insight into what your personal trajectory looks like?

pliffent.

you know nothing of why I vote and who does or does not value it.

Laying that completely aside, I must echo the comments of Ms. Mink. In fact, the only beliefs you seem to have expressed in this proof are that there are votes you agree with and, you know, the belief about me. Do any of the 1197 votes cast by my esteemed colleagues that align with how you would have voted also accord with that or any of your other beliefs? You wouldn't need to show us all of them. You needn't to tell us all your beliefs; there are others?

Now coming back to the comments about me, you're entitled to them and it's not like I'm going to foe anybody over such a comment. I found it offhandedly dismissive, a casualness that makes my skin crawl a little. Possibly that's a generational thing but I've never been rubbed the right way by that kind of confidence.

It'd be an interesting notion to explore, the relative value of votes on an individual or macro basis. Charting something like that might require a kind of survey. We'd need a good sample size but I imagine the right questions could be crafted. Straight up choices or sliding scales would be the only item I'm not sure about. Do you value some votes more than others? On a scale of 1-5, rank the value of the votes you receive from the following players? What would you do for a vote from Player x? Player y? etc.

The fundamental assumption--you expressed it bluntly above--seems to be that votes compare to currency. This is not entirely a consensus truth, though it is a matter of some interest for several players including myself.

Not bad, I thought.

I mean, the methodology (generally speaking) is reasonable, even if I would like some more notes on which votes you agreed with, and why (or what constitutes a "would have voted") You probably should have gone through all tasks and decided that first, and then went through each Senator's voting record to see how it matched up--but going through over a thousand tasks and making a decision on each one is some serious effort, it seems to me.

The burnunit jab was unnecessary, I thought, but taking some candidates out is reasonable (though if you're going to do so, Eleanorest is really your first choice--with only 8 votes, her estimated standard error's going to be pretty big)

(no subject)

I agree with the decision to exclude one or more candidates, if not the reasons. Evaluating over 2000 votes is considerable effort. Spidere I'm not sure going thru each task first is necessarily cleaner though, is it? I mean, the task asks players to evaluate the votes--if his own criteria is "votes I would have agreed with" then going right into the tasks voted on allows him to kill two birds with one stone. Meanwhile not having to evaluate all tasks to find ... what? splits- proofs he would have voted on and they didn't? double negatives- proofs neither would have voted on? May be interesting, but I'm not sure that's required for a scientifical result. I agree, Eleanor's votes should also be subjected to a separate, very detailed analysis, because the reasons for them are wildly varied, from errors to caprice, to... well, who knows.

(no subject)

Since it's how the voting lines up with your belief, it's perfectly reasonable to disqualify people whose voting method is way out of line with your own.

(no subject)

Yes, Lizard Boy, exactly, and to further clarify, the reason I took Burn Unit's votes out of the equation (and it has nothing to do with starting at the bottom and working up and being really tired after days and days of reading praxis voted on by other Senators and the thought of going through 881 more made my brain hurt) was because most of the completions I didn't agree with were either from Impossible Exchange (where I'm sorry to say, but a lot of shoddy work was put up, I mean shoddy work is being put up today *achem* but the shoddy work being put up back then was a product I imagine of the game being so new and people not knowing how to really get awesome yet) or were player pictures. And then, to further vary my "would have voted for" to not just vote for everything I thought was cool, I generally only voted for my favorite of a certain task and not others in that same category. Like I voted for this, but not this, because in retrospect one so far exceeded the other, when the latter first hit the praxis, I'm sure I would have voted for it, but now, knowing what the task could be, all of the others seem so elementary. But of course there are exceptions to this rule as I gave voting props to both doorhenge and the door-mobile as both demonstrated a shocking amount of awesome. What I didn't do is weigh any particular vote. I wanted to. I wanted to weigh any vote for the truly epic, but couldn't decide how much one vote for doorhenge would count relative to a player's picture. So rather than try to work out some weird inconsistent algorithm, I decided to just count them straight up. I could have posted a list of all of the tasks each Senator voted for and my approval of each one, but decided that nobody would really read that. I got bored with reading my own analysis above, I don't think I could have made it through to the end of a calculation that long.

But back to Burn Unit. That statement wasn't meant as a dig. His votes mean a lot. I see he votes for overlooked tasks, to give them attention, he votes a lot for first tasks from players to help make them feel welcome and more a part of the game and he has no problem giving out votes like hugs to anybody he feels deserves it (these are obviously just my opinions based on seeing his votes cast and tasks completed, I may be way off base), Burn Unit is helping spread love over this community and that is very valuable. Maybe more valuable than the rest. But for the purposes of seeing which Senator aligned closest to my idea of awesome tasking, I had to take him out of the equation (and I kept Eleanorest in because she fell right smack dab in the middle of the remaining seven, which I found pretty funny, I obviously know that her sample size isn't large enough to really form a quantifiable opinion, but it's funny, just like she is, so it stays).

Methodology

BU (The Same Boy),

I agree--the inclusion of negative results, while interesting to me, is not required. What I was mainly suggesting was that the order in which these tasks were evaluated could lead to exhaustion biases (i.e., voting for more tasks at first, but later getting tired of some tasks; or vice versa, being willing to vote for a task for effort). Rather than evaluating each task (which would be nice, but huge), randomizing the order and including the new randomized index as a factor would be my suggested way to go. You could also sample from the pool of tasks that the Senators have voted for. But either method would require a computer and parsing of tasks; I certainly recognize that this is beyond the call required for the task. Mainly what I would have liked would have been a little bit of story or flavor as to what tasks seemed important, or the style of task agreement for different Senators (for example: is there anything qualitative to distinguish Darkaardvark, Lincoln, and Cyverkitty?)

So I say good effort. :)

(no subject)

@Interstate TwoFour:

Impossible Exchange is like your dead grandfather. Things he did make less sense now. BUT SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE DEAD!

(no subject)

I have great respect for my old crazy dead grandfather, but I have found that searching through his old papers is a little like archeology and some amazing stuff lies hidden back there in the mists of time. But there are some absolute gems back there to be uncovered. As well as some that are full of awesome and seem to have been overlooked.

But there are still tasks that lacked that certain amount of awesome.

Even so, just looking at tasks that were voted on by Senators didn't uncover the true history of our collective pasts, and more investigation is certainly in order.

(no subject)

It's funny, cuz I was just making a list at home of proofs that I thought were bad and good. i'd started with a list of my own, mostly from ImpEx. Then I was going to list ones by other experienced players. Then I was going to say "whenever you get all bitchy about 'the kids these days,' look at this list and step the frak up graybeards." I was going to put it on my user page. You've started to do that already. Keep it up, it's interesting.

But I agree, the respect for elders does apply especially to a few certain people players.... I'm a newb compared to them... first-era leader included, and our dear newsletter man included, too.

(no subject)

carajo no hable mal los burritos son como joyas de esta ciuda

(no subject)

I'm going to vote. Because you've done a great job at uncovering these gems!

(no subject)

jeezum crow ben, anyone can find the good stuff. there's about a billion different ways to list the damn praxis pages. or people could go back into a players' completed tasks page and look at previous eras. Christ, doesn't anybody read old proofs anymore?

This praxis clearly took some work, but your write-up makes me not want to vote for it anyway.

a.) Don't diss the Unit. (too late, maybe undiss him) Daddy Unit's votes and comments nurtured my infant character to strong feisty teenagerhood and adulthood. Plus his comments are some of the best around.
I will defend him to the death.
b.) More info required on the subjective parts of your analysis. Go on. Get a good discussion going here about your thoughts on what makes something vote-worthy. Go on.

(no subject)

I looked at every single vote cast by all of the Senators and then based on those same tasks, I ask myself "would I have voted for them?"

woah woah woah

Thanks for the love, seriously! (wow, bex. just, wow)
But let's not make this about me.
1) I said as much in private messages but based on his "BU (Twenty4)," I'm suddenly concerned that lowteck is addressing that comment to me and thus might think this is somehow me in masquerade? (anyone else have this thought?) Definitely not. It would be incredibly bad form to do this. I am assuming TwoFer is a 100% real human being (born n' raised in Zion?)
2) I take I-24's comments in stride, and don't mind the reasoning, i.e., a selective sample is in the scheme of things, acceptable. I was further moved by the heartwarming comments that came up in his later speculations.
3) That said, I think the request for more information from other players is notable. There have been multiple calls now for more about this alignment-with-beliefs equation. Yes, please! It's a tough call though, because the amount of work already done is substantial, and perhaps players don't think they should have to do so much for such a low level task. So, I don't know. I'd leave it to the community to decide. But in for a penny in for a pound at this point, man. Maybe you can tend this garden up a bit now that it's filling up with us various wildflowers and psychotropics down here in the comments.

4) Also, it's a good point The Vixen makes that I wonder if it doesn't go for the whole community: if there's at least 369 proofs out there that you would vote for...well, what the crap? There's really nothing stopping you. Which principles, exactly, keep a person from doing that? Articulate some more about that.

I've been openly critical of other players for the stance of not voting on tasks that happened before they joined. And practically derisive of not voting after retirement or not for previous eras. It's been pointed out in other conversations by at least one of the commentators in this growing list that they don't vote when they feel "enough" people already voted for a particular proof. I don't really jive with that either.

But the upshot is I'm a lot more flexible and less tyrannical about this than I let on. Simply because it's endlessly fascinating to find out more on why people do or do not vote and I'd really like to know more about the reasons--I'd like to know almost more than I actually need to have someone vote. But it is just an outright peeve to ever hear someone say "I would vote..." and then not ...you know, pull the trigger. Don't be a friggin tease, man.

(no subject)

4) Also, it's a good point The Vixen makes that I wonder if it doesn't go for the whole community: if there's at least 369 proofs out there that you would vote for...well, what the crap? There's really nothing stopping you. Which principles, exactly, keep a person from doing that? Articulate some more about that.

And then, to further vary my "would have voted for" to not just vote for everything I thought was cool, I generally only voted for my favorite of a certain task and not others in that same category. Like I voted for this, but not this, because in retrospect one so far exceeded the other, when the latter first hit the praxis, I'm sure I would have voted for it, but now, knowing what the task could be, all of the others seem so elementary. But of course there are exceptions to this rule as I gave voting props to both doorhenge and the door-mobile as both demonstrated a shocking amount of awesome.

(no subject)

Hmm...no more than an hour after I posted that comment, 16 lucky people have received votes from our good sir 24.

Feeling a little anxious, eh?

And I thought people voted on my tasks because they liked them...

(no subject)

I have now updated my completion (hopefully to most people's satisfaction) and have voted on some tasks that stand out right off the bat. I didn't vote while doing this task because I was focused on doing the task. I had to sift through an d read a lot and to have added votes during that time would have been disastrous to this completion, and now I feel a huge responsibility in how I cast my votes, so I'm gonna take some time with them.

(no subject)

oh.

well son of a bitch.

it's clues.
------
or not

(edit: I guess task was edited from the time I came to the conclusion it was fake, dozed off, hit the submit button to post this note? It's different now anyway and I'm going to bed)

(no subject)

I would vote for this but that would diminish the value of a vote.

(no subject)

"I didn't vote while doing this task because I was focused on doing the task"

≠

"And then, to further vary my "would have voted for" to not just vote for everything I thought was cool, I generally only voted for my favorite of a certain task and not others in that same category"

(no subject)

If I could vote for BLUE's (Badge Hoarde) comment, I would, just to undermine his attempt to alter the value of a vote.

I'd vote for this task, but i feel it is incomplete. It is a good start, but as it stands it tells me very little about the senators or 24 (except the fact that they've spent time voting and he's spending time thinking about voting).

Saving votes lame. vote if you like. don't if you don't. show appreciation where you think it needs to be shown and don't think so much. It is a game. play.

(no subject)

I like it. I like the completion. I like the method. And not just because I'm on the top of the list. I think he did as good a job or better than any n00b's first completion I've seen (except for maybe this). Vote.