I was mad when I first saw the vote, but changed my after after think of it this way - if Ebirah had voted 2-1 for Berlin, it still would have won.
ZooChat Cup Group B: Berlin Zoo vs Wroclaw
- Thread starter CGSwans
- Start date
He was the tie-breaker vote, therefore he is the sole determining factor here... If the score was 18 2-1 Wroclaw to 19 2-1 Berlin then it wouldn't matter anyway. The difference is his vote is the reason Berlin won as opposed to a tie being reached. From memory, the almost same exact thing happened in the Bronx v Leipzig match.
As I and others have said, Ebirah said he voted without knowing anything about Wroclaw and didn't bother to take arguments into consideration when making his vote. He also gave reasonings that completely contradicted himself and his vote multiple times. I'm not sure how you don't see that as evidence for unfair voting. He also ignored requests to explain his vote, including a request by the man running this game, while being online to do so. He instead posted only to state that he's "deadlocked" once the match was rounding to a close. I agree it's tiring that people have to call out others for breaking the rules. It's not like it's just the losing side either, people who voted for the winning zoos agree that there's some very sketchy voting going on that's being ignored. It's not as though this is every close match either, most close matches finish smoothly. This has happened only a few times when there's been some highly suspect voting going on, and each time those who have completely independently noticed and pointed it out have been the ones attacked and blamed as opposed to those actually messing with the results.
When someone comes in close to the end and votes in such an extreme way without initial reasoning, ignores requests for justification and then gives contradictory reasoning, refuses to answer follow up questions when called out on being contradictory, and then states that they didn't know anything about the zoo they voted against nor would change their vote had they known, people on both sides of the match are going to be unsatisfied with that behavior. That's very clearly different from someone voting within the norm and simply not giving a reason or being online to answer a request. It's a little ridiculous that his behavior is being understated to look fair simply so that the round can appear to have been run smoothly.
I repeat; what's the point of the conversation looking as though the match went smoothly if someone can still come in at any time and ruin the outcome unchallenged?
~Thylo
I originally voted 2-1 Berlin, but after hearing convincing arguments for Wroclaw from many members, I changed my vote to 2-1 Wroclaw. I still kept my promise of not going 3-0 while also seeing all viewpoints for what is a fair, unbiased vote.
Exactly! People only noticed because the vote was so extreme, and then became upset after his behavior described above. The issue isn't that anyone's mad "their zoo" lost.
Even if he had voted 3-0, but actually explained his vote in a clear and concise manner, people would have found it extreme but no one would have been upset about it. It's not the vote, it's the behavior and (perceived) motive behind it.
~Thylo
Quite.
I will engage with the substance of the previous post later in (the Australian) day, as I’ve just woken up and want to fully order my somewhat complex thoughts into a coherent response. But does anybody imagine it’s fun for me to have to wade through this stuff in every close match?
I have data for Wrocław, but not the latest. It is for 31.12.2017: Reptiles - 231 species, amphibians - 59 sp, fish - 363 sp and invertebrates - 173 sp.
It's been literally three matches where this has happened, only two of which have actually blown up into arguments..... Unsurprisingly, it's these same three matches where people on both sides have noted suspect voting habits.
Regardless, I do not intend to push this matter any further, as it appears others have given up already. I do look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject, however.
~Thylo
I reckon that it's only been two or three matches, not every close match - as for why it's happened specifically when the score has been close, that would surely be because people notice and care about perceived irregularities more when they make a difference. If there were a landslide vote of 99-3 in a tie and the dissenting 3-0 said that it was for "the lulz" people would just ignore it
And no, I imagine it's not fun to wade through this stuff - and we're all thankful that you put so much time and effort into the challenge - considering some of the stuff I've had to wade through myself from time to time!
My comment above, essentially urging people to move on from this thread, wasn’t directed at any one individual and I wasn’t assigning blame or picking a side: I simply don’t enjoy seeing good debates end in slanging matches. I really do try my best to make this game work and it’s morale-sapping to have it regularly devolve into finger-pointing. It’s even more morale-sapping to have the finger pointed at *me*, but I’ll leave it at that.
On the substantive issue, there’s comments I want to make strictly in relation to this match, and then there’s things that apply to Cup admin more broadly, and they don’t entirely overlap.
First, let me be clear that I consider this match’s result legitimate and final. There would be no basis for controversy had Ebirah’s vote been 2-1 for Berlin, in line with the consensus view (which I personally share) that this match was a difficult, line-ball decision. Had Ebirah done so this would have been a 1 point win for Berlin, not 3 points, but it would have still been a win for Berlin, and the impact on percentages is vanishingly small. I also share Vision’s philosophical view that no single vote should be seen as the ‘casting’ vote, anyway.
I am aware that to some extent the complaint in this match doesn’t strictly relate only to Cup threads, but to suggestions of wider patterns of behaviour across the site. I don’t know anything about the substance of those suggestions and I’m not going to make decisions based on things I don’t, and can’t, know enough about.
More broadly, I genuinely don’t believe that any previous matches in this Cup have yet been decided unfairly. I’ve gone looking for the pattern of voting behaviour alleged by Thylo above and simply haven’t found it. Unless the contention is that one person is operating multiple accounts, the implied cases of bad faith voting are by different people, and in past matches I’ve actually been satisfied that the evidence suggests people were indeed voting in good faith (go back and read them, I’m not prosecuting them again here). Do I think every one of the close to 1000 votes that have been cast so far have been strictly within the rules? That seems unlikely. But the evidence doesn’t bear out the claim that bad faith behaviour is deciding results.
However it *could*, in future, and as much as it strains my credulity that this is necessary, I’m going to outline a planned response.
I have said time and again that this game operates on the honour system. You have simple instructions for how to frame your vote: stay strictly within the given category and do not take into account the results of any other match. Judge each contest on its merits and remember that nobody in your favourite zoo gives a flying ferret. (Though if they *did* give a flying ferret it would surely help them win any match fought on carnivores).
The emphasis is on the honour system because I cannot claim to know what is in your mind, but also because the fewer constraints on decision-making the better the game works. It’s designed to tease out the differences between how people view what makes for quality in a zoo, and that requires that it be open to diverse and unorthodox opinions.
In one early thread based on carnivores, Giant Panda advanced the case for... I think it was Detroit, on the strength of its efforts to rescue and rehouse dogs and cats. I’m sure there were people who scoffed at the notion that domestics should count, but it was an original, out of the box idea that got me thinking, and that’s what the game is supposed to do. Had that match been decided by a point I’m sure there would be people who thought the ‘wrong’ result had been reached, but that’s just the way it goes: you won’t always agree with others’ logic, and that makes the game worth playing.
Obviously that’s open to abuse. As I said above, I think people wilfully voting against what they believe is the ‘right’ outcome is very rare, but it is possible and probably inevitable at some level, as much as I don’t understand the impulse. And though I want to be as hands-off as possible, it’s clear to me that this debate is going to keep flaring unless I do something. So I’m making clear now that I will, at my discretion, decide not to count votes where I consider that the available evidence suggests those votes are not made within the spirit of the rules.
This is a nuclear option, something that I’ve resisted even hinting at before and something I simply don’t want to do. Just stick to the rules, people, it’s more fun!
I’m reluctant to do it both because it feels heavy-handed and is itself potentially corrosive of trust in the game, and so it’s only in cases where I think the result may have been decisively shifted by bad faith voting that I will intervene. I hope I have your trust that I have absolutely no interest in the outcome other than that it generates discussion and remains fun: I don’t care who wins and I encourage you not to focus on it as well. But because that trust is important, whenever I have concerns about an outcome I will privately ask two moderators to consider the situation and reach consensus that a vote should be overturned - if neither one agrees with me, the result stands.
Because of the paramount importance of staying open to diverse views, no single vote will be rejected as untrustworthy in and of itself. Outlier votes are perfectly fine if there’s a reason for them, and so I will only be looking for patterns of behaviour: a habit of unexplained contrarian votes, perhaps, or a sudden burst of votes from new members. I will also listen to the two moderators about any indication they have of deliberate intentions to sow discord.
If you have a concern about a result, please contact me privately and try to keep the argument out of the match thread. Remember that I’m going to err on the side of *not* intervening except in compelling circumstances, and please don’t continue to argue the call once it’s made. I enjoy stretching my limited knowledge of soccer (yes - it’s called soccer) for FIFA similes, but I draw the line at being the poor sap referee trying to assess a player’s Oscar credentials while the other team swarms about gesticulating madly.
Now. Can we please just remember that this is supposed to be fun?
On the substantive issue, there’s comments I want to make strictly in relation to this match, and then there’s things that apply to Cup admin more broadly, and they don’t entirely overlap.
First, let me be clear that I consider this match’s result legitimate and final. There would be no basis for controversy had Ebirah’s vote been 2-1 for Berlin, in line with the consensus view (which I personally share) that this match was a difficult, line-ball decision. Had Ebirah done so this would have been a 1 point win for Berlin, not 3 points, but it would have still been a win for Berlin, and the impact on percentages is vanishingly small. I also share Vision’s philosophical view that no single vote should be seen as the ‘casting’ vote, anyway.
I am aware that to some extent the complaint in this match doesn’t strictly relate only to Cup threads, but to suggestions of wider patterns of behaviour across the site. I don’t know anything about the substance of those suggestions and I’m not going to make decisions based on things I don’t, and can’t, know enough about.
More broadly, I genuinely don’t believe that any previous matches in this Cup have yet been decided unfairly. I’ve gone looking for the pattern of voting behaviour alleged by Thylo above and simply haven’t found it. Unless the contention is that one person is operating multiple accounts, the implied cases of bad faith voting are by different people, and in past matches I’ve actually been satisfied that the evidence suggests people were indeed voting in good faith (go back and read them, I’m not prosecuting them again here). Do I think every one of the close to 1000 votes that have been cast so far have been strictly within the rules? That seems unlikely. But the evidence doesn’t bear out the claim that bad faith behaviour is deciding results.
However it *could*, in future, and as much as it strains my credulity that this is necessary, I’m going to outline a planned response.
I have said time and again that this game operates on the honour system. You have simple instructions for how to frame your vote: stay strictly within the given category and do not take into account the results of any other match. Judge each contest on its merits and remember that nobody in your favourite zoo gives a flying ferret. (Though if they *did* give a flying ferret it would surely help them win any match fought on carnivores).
The emphasis is on the honour system because I cannot claim to know what is in your mind, but also because the fewer constraints on decision-making the better the game works. It’s designed to tease out the differences between how people view what makes for quality in a zoo, and that requires that it be open to diverse and unorthodox opinions.
In one early thread based on carnivores, Giant Panda advanced the case for... I think it was Detroit, on the strength of its efforts to rescue and rehouse dogs and cats. I’m sure there were people who scoffed at the notion that domestics should count, but it was an original, out of the box idea that got me thinking, and that’s what the game is supposed to do. Had that match been decided by a point I’m sure there would be people who thought the ‘wrong’ result had been reached, but that’s just the way it goes: you won’t always agree with others’ logic, and that makes the game worth playing.
Obviously that’s open to abuse. As I said above, I think people wilfully voting against what they believe is the ‘right’ outcome is very rare, but it is possible and probably inevitable at some level, as much as I don’t understand the impulse. And though I want to be as hands-off as possible, it’s clear to me that this debate is going to keep flaring unless I do something. So I’m making clear now that I will, at my discretion, decide not to count votes where I consider that the available evidence suggests those votes are not made within the spirit of the rules.
This is a nuclear option, something that I’ve resisted even hinting at before and something I simply don’t want to do. Just stick to the rules, people, it’s more fun!
I’m reluctant to do it both because it feels heavy-handed and is itself potentially corrosive of trust in the game, and so it’s only in cases where I think the result may have been decisively shifted by bad faith voting that I will intervene. I hope I have your trust that I have absolutely no interest in the outcome other than that it generates discussion and remains fun: I don’t care who wins and I encourage you not to focus on it as well. But because that trust is important, whenever I have concerns about an outcome I will privately ask two moderators to consider the situation and reach consensus that a vote should be overturned - if neither one agrees with me, the result stands.
Because of the paramount importance of staying open to diverse views, no single vote will be rejected as untrustworthy in and of itself. Outlier votes are perfectly fine if there’s a reason for them, and so I will only be looking for patterns of behaviour: a habit of unexplained contrarian votes, perhaps, or a sudden burst of votes from new members. I will also listen to the two moderators about any indication they have of deliberate intentions to sow discord.
If you have a concern about a result, please contact me privately and try to keep the argument out of the match thread. Remember that I’m going to err on the side of *not* intervening except in compelling circumstances, and please don’t continue to argue the call once it’s made. I enjoy stretching my limited knowledge of soccer (yes - it’s called soccer) for FIFA similes, but I draw the line at being the poor sap referee trying to assess a player’s Oscar credentials while the other team swarms about gesticulating madly.
Now. Can we please just remember that this is supposed to be fun?