Those are new row of aviaries, just after the Monkey path on the Central Alley.
European (Tea)Cup - League C - Beauval vs Burgers
- Thread starter TeaLovingDave
- Start date
Those are new row of aviaries, just after the Monkey path on the Central Alley.
No need to say sorry because your opinion goes against the mainstream!
Breeding success is part of the story, but in 2020 they added 1.3 new manatees from other zoos. So the overcrowding is very much intentional. The manatee exhibits in Burgers' and Beauval are the same volume and while Beauval can guarantee that there will always be a manatee in front of a window, the exhibits are just not comparable in quality...
I don't know when you last visited Burgers', but in the past 12 months 4 new bird species were added to the list of free-flying species in the Desert and they very much make it come alive.
It depends on what you judge the zoos on. Beauval's exhibits might be on a fairly high standard overall from an animal welfare perspective. Through the eyes of a landscape architect they are of an abysmal standard with crazy sightlines, pointless mock rock, glare on viewing windows everywhere and in the case of the large aviary a weird lay-out with narrow bridges and obligatory backtracking. Especially the Bush and the Desert are masterclasses when it comes to creating effective sightlines, and giving an impression of being larger than the exhibit actually is. The manatee viewing window in Burgers' also shows how to avoid glare by effective landscaping.
You can also judge on the breeding success of the birds instead of the list they have. Beauval's list might be twice as long, but with the smaller species the breeding success is quite low, whereas it is more often than not through the roof in Burgers'.
Don't be so easy on judging others on how they judge. I would have expected this match to be a bit closer than it is, but pointing to unfair treatment of Beauval because it is Beauval is too easy...
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Whereabouts in the zoo are these? I have no memory of them and they look rather nice.
I still feel confident that Burgers' is superior because its enclosures are so innovative, so evocative, and so unique. Nothing at Beauval quite matches the genius of the Mangrove or the awe of the Bush. However, it really is very close, and I think the seven 4-1 Burgers' votes are unmerited and dismissive of Beauval's larger and equally rarity-packed collection with consistently good exhibits, some of which arguably exceed Burgers' purely from an animal's perspective . Believe it or not, the S.A. Aviary is bigger than the Bush by area and presumably by volume too; say what you like about the landscaping but the flight space is remarkable. Similarly, compare Beauval's huge and beautiful Pampas exhibit to the tiny barren grotto in the Bush and tell me where would you rather be a Capybara. Yes, Burgers' is ahead, but it is more of a 5-4 than a 4-1 in my opinion.
My question then is this: would it be fair play to switch to 3-2 Beauval to balance out the percentages towards what I deem a more accurate scoreline? Asking before I do so, because I completely understand if that goes against the rules of fair play, but if it doesn't then I am quite tempted. Obviously, if I am permitted to do this, and some of the 4-1 voters switch to 3-2, then I too will revert my vote to the original 3-2 Burgers'.
Or alternatively, could some of the 4-1 voters elaborate on why they feel that all of Beauval's high-quality offerings deserve only a single point? I am not sure we have heard from any of them yet, and I am starting to get a feeling that the same 'bias against Beauval's exhibits' which @pipaluk and myself discussed in previous threads is coming into play again. I will feel much more content with a comfortable Burgers' win should a little more explanation be provided.
Not sure what the rules are, but I don't think switching votes to compensate for other's voting is sound. I think the vote should be on your (well informed) view, but that's just my perspective.
There's no 'balance' to be achieved if people are voting 4/1 or 5/0 Beauval or indeed Burgers, not because they think a zoo deserves few points (or vice versa), but in protest in the way other people have voted. People would be better off arguing the case for Beauval or Burgers instead.
Just my point of view though. There may be some personal prejudice involved in the votes, but it's someone's choice how much they want to 'defend' a favourite collection and it is the equivalent of people voting down if a collection doesn't have hippos in a category about birds, or basing it only on a number count or what have you. Each to their own.
Or (as is the case with my vote, which started as 3:2 but shifted to 4:1 after the post by Lintworm reminded me of *how* good some of the exhibits were - or in the case of the squirrel monkey exhibit that it existed - and that the level to which they were relevant to the category was higher than I remembered) that the strengths of Burgers merit particular attention and cast Beauval in the shade; in my opinion Bush is the best of the three oft-discussed major European tropical houses, Desert is probably the best of its kind in Europe (although Vienna possibly beats it sometimes depending on how I feel), and Monsoon is unequalled both as an invertebrate display and a manatee exhibit.
So, not so much that Beauval merits only a single point and more that I feel Burgers merits more than 3 points - although the five-point system is much better for subtlety than the old three-point system, it's still not perfect and things don't always fit the points available
for what its worth I think a 2:1 or a 3:1 vote (if we were working with either a three-point or four-point system) would fit my true sentiments closer than the 4:1 vote does.It does somewhat amuse me that both of you are convinced that people are biased against Beauval when it is currently the front-runner in League C and as such the only collection which is all-but-guaranteed to progress
not the most effective conspiracy, then.Correct; I reserve the right to discount any votes (in either direction in a given match) for which there is strong evidence that this is the primary motivation for the vote or switch in vote - much the same as the requirement in the rules that 5:0 votes have to be explicitly defended and justified, and that the justification has to be substantial enough in my eyes to merit the vote being accepted.
Minor correction - basing a vote purely on species numbers is far more legitimate than voting against collections which don't have Common Hippopotamus in categories where the species and its status at a given collection is entirely irrelevant
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
Fully understand these remarks, hence why I was so hesitant to change my vote and wanted confirmation before doing so. For what its worth, I wouldn't consider it if I thought my own 3-2 was accurate, or if the 4-1 Burgers' voters provided any sort of justification. But because I think 3-2 doesn't do justice to quite how close it is (5-4 or even 10-9 would be fairer in my eyes, although of course having to make difficult decisions such as this is part of the joy of the current five-point system) I don't feel too much as though I would be doing Burgers' a disservice or going against my own thoughts and feelings on the matter. And it wouldn't have even crossed my mind to do so had you yourself not done it in the Beauval / Frankfurt match, TLD, although of course as the host of the tournament you are allowed to have different privileges and I shall protest no further.
But the winner of the game is already just about confirmed, so it doesn't matter too much anyways. I was in large part asking to try and encourage some of those 4-1 voters to explain their vote.
Anyways, glad to have this all cleared up. I assume that if I believe a vote is literally too close to call for myself, then I can vote for the zoo that is currently losing as a tie-breaking factor?
And it wouldn't have even crossed my mind to do so had you yourself not done it in the Beauval / Frankfurt match, TLD, although of course as the host of the tournament you are allowed to have different privileges and I shall protest no further.
If you recall, I did that specifically to balance out a 5:0 vote which I strongly suspected had been made in bad faith but couldn't *prove* this was the case, and as such didn't feel fully comfortable disregarding
as the individual responsible is the same one who has made another extreme-outlier vote in the Chester vs Vienna match without providing justification (and therefore has displayed a trend of behaviour) I've been giving serious consideration to retrospectively negating his vote and reverting to my original vote.The main thing giving me pause in the matter is the fact it'll slightly reduce the overall percentage for Beauval after five matches, and I've got people complaining (incorrectly) about a perceived anti-Beauval agenda as it is!
If you've not already voted, yes - switching vote as a tiebreak is preferably avoided I reckon, as it has a bigger impact on overall percentages (and hence potential progression) than both collections earning 50% does.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Minor correction - basing a vote purely on species numbers is far more legitimate than voting against collections which don't have Common Hippopotamus in categories where the species and its status at a given collection is entirely irrelevant
Fair point and correction!
The 'species number only' thing for me throws a bit of a weird curve ball as it almost looks like people doing it on that basis don't mind how a thing is held as long as it is. Not to say numbers aren't important just that, for me, they are one bit of a picture.
Oh, I'm not exactly keen on it myself - quite apart from anything else, if it was always just reduced down to species numbers you could automatically calculate the result of the entire Cup from first principles
and likely get a rather different result from the one we *will* eventually get.
Surely everything should be taken into consideration ? There are no hard and fast rules about how people should vote and if everyone votes on exhibits alone I'm sure Burgers will win every match where it's indoor areas count ( equally boring as the species count I would suggest!)- but barring a lot of luck it will be beaten at some point when it gets the wrong category, because it doesn't have enough all round quantity and in some cases quality. Time will tell...Oh, I'm not exactly keen on it myself - quite apart from anything else, if it was always just reduced down to species numbers you could automatically calculate the result of the entire Cup from first principles
We're actually in agreement on this matter
but my point is that given the fact that species count is based on empirical fact rather than personal opinion, if everyone used it as the sole and universal way of determining the victor of a match we'd be able to work out the Cup winner before a single match started, and this would not only be boring but likely produce a different result to the one we actually will get!
A well-fought match with a high level of both discussion and overall votes cast (although an outlier 5:0 vote which was made without any justification or explanation has been discounted) and as such precisely what I hoped this Cup would bring:
Beauval - 61/155 points - 39.355%
Burgers - 94/155 points - 60.645%
.
Beauval - 61/155 points - 39.355%
Burgers - 94/155 points - 60.645%
.
Well at least 2 4-1 votes for Burgers were reduced to 3-2:in the last few hours, totally justified in my opinion