Classic Tease of the Month: November 2011

[Alliteration]

I challenge you to do better. I certainly believe you're capable of it. Prove me right. Or don't. But carefully consider the people you may very well dishearten, and disappoint, should you choose not to. *That* is my challenge to you. Do better.

I, for one, think 1885 is doing a fantastic job with TOTM. He had a difficult decision this month with it - maybe it wasn't the right one, but he obviously put quite a bit of thought into it. And, as Evals said, his answer was not "do nothing".

I'm curious - how exactly do you think he should "do better"? By doing things the way you want them to be done (and what if he *can't* do things as he would like - remember, he's not an admin)? That's the only thing I can assume you mean, as any mistakes he's made here certainly aren't for lack of trying.

[1885]

Okay, okay ... I understand the logic ... but what about the folks who deserved to be up there? *Points to the TOTM vote* You and I (and many others) know that there's folks that deserve the recognition, that didn't get it.

The folks who deserve the recognition and didn't get it were victims of those who chose to abuse the system for short-sighted gain, not the system itself. My response to this month's TOTM is to make those people understand that if they destroy the system that supports the authors who make the teases and deserve the recognition, they could very easily hurt the motivations of all the authors here and subsequently threaten the production of the very teases they're abusing the system to promote.

And you of all people should know how much I hate having the voice of the one or two people overrun by the masses. They're every bit as important as anybody else.

I would find this a lot more sincere if you hadn't once overrun my voice with a mass of aliases, ultimately forcing me to decide to leave the site for over 3 years. Of course, this isn't about you and me, but given your history with the site at large, forgive me if I find your concern dubious.

What worth is that legacy, if you can't uphold the values upon which it was founded? I challenge you to do better. I certainly believe you're capable of it. Prove me right. Or don't. But carefully consider the people you may very well dishearten, and disappoint, should you choose not to. *That* is my challenge to you. Do better.

Why are you addressing that question to me? I voted once for Stair_Car and once for vinkas in the TOTM, and as a tease author I feel unqualified to rate other people's teases, so I don't. Your question needs to be directed at those who would abuse the system.

I don't control how the TOTM works. I'm not an admin, moderator or team member. I sent you a pm when you were still a mod to ask if I could take over from dix, and you allowed me to. I took it a step further by asking ph0x if he could give me the power to hand out badges, and he did so. Nowhere in that chain did I ask for or was given the power to affect site policy. I run the TOTM unofficially to keep the legacy of the contest alive, that's all.

I have tried very hard to think of a system that would prevent cheating, but if I did come up with such a system, my next course would be to submit it to the team members, not to implement it. But I have not thought of a system that prevents cheating. For instance, I agree that rating teases should be restricted to registered members. But that wouldn't have stopped Kendoll's victory in the TOTM, which I perceive to be illegitimate.

Shutting down the TOTM to stop abusers from destroying it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. My decision to honor the results was not an example of "doing nothing". I didn't want to honor the results because I didn't believe in them, but ultimately I chose to adhere to the system in hopes that it would inspire others to do the same. It wasn't easy for me, it won't be easy for others who would take advantage of the system. But we are the change we seek, it has to come from us as a community.

I would welcome any reform that would help recognize all who deserve it. Until then, I stand by my choice to honor the system and call for altruism.

[les]

Just a thought from a simple soul.
Why not moderate all votes for "TOTM" and not publish the result until the due date.
As the total votes cast are usually less than a hundred
This month 29. it should be easily doable.

I do believe that's how most voting systems in the real world work.

And with them real power and more is at stake.

[1885]

But you're incorrect in assuming you're doing it under an unofficial capacity - as I recall, Ph0x announced publicly that he was endorsing you for the TOTM responsibilities.

I don't recall this, but it's conceivable he said as much in the Team Member forums. Regardless of whether he did or didn't, it doesn't make my username any more green.

That *makes* you responsible for it, as you accepted it, and are, until you resign the responsibility. I'm addressing my question to you, because you're the one with authority to make the call, or at the very least, the suggestion as to handling the situation better.

Taking over the TOTM from dix did not give me the authority to usurp established site policy. What I offered to do was check the ratings every month, figure out the five highest rated authors, create a TOTM thread for TOTM and FTOTM using the template you provided, and announce the winners. I extended it further and was given site permissions to edit tags from seraph0x, which lets me tag teases to denote them as winners and nominees. I can also give people forum badges, and I was recently given permission to post in the announcement forum so I didn't have to seek a team member to move my TOTM posts there. My limited site powers were granted to do the work I offered to do, and I have consistently produced the TOTM's on the first of every month since.

I don't mingle behind closed doors with the team members, I don't have access to the team member forums, and I don't schmooze it up with ph0x or the mods. I don't affect site policy, directly or indirectly. I'm like a bank teller who volunteers to get the nameplates made for Employee of the Month, and you act like I have the keys to the vault.

But my point is, as for being the person to run the competition, you have an ethical responsibility to make sure that the people who are deserving of the recognition, get it.

Again, I'm just a bank teller. The ethical responsibility falls on all of us as a community. My power on the forums begins and ends with posting these threads, yet my power to affect change is the same as anyone else's. But I can't do it alone, we must do it altruistically.

As per usual, you seem pretty cavalier about the whole thing - there's folks out there that take it a bit more seriously, and *that's* where I'm coming from. [....] But others hold it in pretty high regard, and so long as they do, they deserve to have a leader that's going to do right.

Responding to this with any kind of counterpoint would only validate the ridiculous frame you're trying to establish that I've been cavalier about this month's TOTM.

I've got one. Do it by nomination. Any team-member, and especially the site admins can verify that the nominations aren't given by the same people ... well, not without significant effort.

I've already considered this reform. I even went as far as to submit it to seraph0x, but I deleted the message before he could even read it because I realized it's still exploitable. The influx of new users "delurking" just to say how awesome Kendoll's tease was seemed to me like a preemptive proof of plausibility should people question Kendoll's upcoming TOTM victory. Anyone can create an army of subs to beat the nomination reform idea. I'd rather not suggest replacing a system that has worked far more often than not with another system that's still exploitable.

The problem with the ideal of altruism is that it is an ideal based upon giving something of value without regard for self. There's a reward in play, which gives the motivation for people to get that reward, sometimes by illicit means. If a system is broken, lets fix it, not just close our eyes, and hope it gets better.

I have Asperger's Syndrome. An altruistic ideal is the only one that makes sense to me, not just regarding TOTM but in general. I can't fathom exploiting a system for illicit personal gain, and I lack the empathy necessary to understand how people could destroy an entire system for short-term benefits. However, I am aware that they do.

Truth be told, it's very difficult for me to speak with you directly because of our past and what I've witnessed your various incarnations and sock puppets do. I don't trust you, or your motivations. I don't believe your sincerity in seeking reform, and in any other topic I wouldn't cross conversational streams with you at all. But I am doing my best to maintain an open, objective dialogue regarding this matter because any reform in the community is going to require discourse from the community.

I run the TOTM every month. I've explained how abusing the system can harm not just the rest of the community, but the very ones doing it as well. I am calling for the community to act altruistically. And I am committed to establishing and maintaining an open discourse for reform from anyone with advice and suggestions to give.

You can't ask more from a bank teller than that!

[1885]

Why not moderate all votes for "TOTM" and not publish the result until the due date.

Could you clarify this for me?

Are you saying to keep all the votes hidden until the 8th of every month? How would you do that?

[les]

I am thinking in the same way as the votes cast are hidden until a member casts their own vote,

I am saying all the votes cast are concealed from all but yourself 1885 until the day of counting.
Just like any other government or phone vote.

I am sure this facility exists in the forum software to be found with a little digging.

In the mean time as the overseer you can disallow votes that are dubious to say the least.

We will never stop a member coercing another in their vote.

Double or repeat voting is not allowable.

I have found that many public wi-fi spots in England prevent access to "Porn sites"
So to cheat is not easy
Especially if you check IP codes against names.
You may well find the same IP used by different names and vice versa, over time.

The idea is to make it hard work to cheat and relatively easy to check.

Trust this is clearer.

[Human]

I have tried very hard to think of a system that would prevent cheating, but if I did come up with such a system, my next course would be to submit it to the team members, not to implement it. But I have not thought of a system that prevents cheating. For instance, I agree that rating teases should be restricted to registered members. But that wouldn't have stopped Kendoll's victory in the TOTM, which I perceive to be illegitimate.

The idea is to make cheating hard, not impossible.

For the TOTM voting: what if we require that only people with 50+ posts can vote?

Yes, this can still be manipulated, but doing so requires a certain bit of lunacy.

[1885]

I am thinking in the same way as the votes cast are hidden until a member casts their own vote,

I am saying all the votes cast are concealed from all but yourself 1885 until the day of counting.

The site doesn't have that kind of functionality, as jp pointed out. The only way I could think of to utilize such a system would be to have the community PM their TOTM nominations to me directly. While I could trust my own objectivity in doing it that way, I could never ask any other member to just take my word of impartiality. It would have to be through site mechanics, and those mechanics aren't in place as far as jp or I know.

For the TOTM voting: what if we require that only people with 50+ posts can vote?

Just using my own posting history for example, it would have taken me months to earn the right to vote under this system. And sadly I've seen that level of lunacy you describe with my own eyes.

To reference Ratatouille, this site has always operated under an "Anyone Can Cook" philosophy, and I wouldn't want to suggest denying any facet of the site to its members, no matter how venerable or not they are.

[Human]

Everyone is welcome, even if you only want to wreak havoc by abusing the system.
.

I dont think Seraph will agree to that

[Vinc]

Haven#t read everything but I want to say something.

Only Member#s should vote. Maybe its impossible to realize this idea so I have another one =D

There are FlashTeases, Classic Teases but no category VideoTeases. If Videoteases get there own category there would be no problem. I think that videoteases are a lot of work and are not comparable with classic teases. Dunno how to say what I mean.... Just make an own category for videoteases ^^ Or what? =D

[1885]

Seraph0x had granted Nezhul (the volunteer who had been running ToTM) the authority to run TOTM and FTOTM as he saw fit. I would assume that also grants the same to 1885, as he's taken on the mantle.

In any correspondence I've had with Seraph0x, the powers bestowed upon me have began and ended with "tag moderator". If seraph0x gives me his blessing to run the TOTM as I see fit, then I will certainly do my best to apply creative solutions. However, any solutions still must be within the forum rights of an average user, which is why I'm encouraging the current discourse.

So, setting that argument aside ... I'm genuinely curious, ... what other agenda could I possibly have, if not seeking reforms? In case you hadn't noticed, most of my posts of late have been exactly that.

And the reason for those reforms you seek all spring from the fallacious frame you've tried to established that you were relieved of your admin duties because you spoke out against the machine and were crushed by it, not because of the way you behaved on the forums. This isn't the thread to discuss that, I'm merely satisfying your curiosity.

1885 wasn't exactly forthcoming in his own past and identity when he wanted my help in taking on the TOTM and FTOTM authorities. Pretending to be on good terms with someone, while having another agenda kinda goes to the top of my list as far as "scheming" to get ones' own way goes.

I didn't tell you (or anyone) who I was until I outed myself in the elephant thread. And the reason I didn't was because of this exactly right here. It is impossible for us to engage each other without perpetuating this cycle.

And when I was anonymous, we didn't pretend to be on good terms, we were on good terms. I didn't speak to you any more than what was necessary to acquire/fulfill my duties here and answer your questions. Our rapport remained professional and uninvolved. When this thread has resolved itself, let's go back to that please because it is the only way we will ever coexist.

Your bank-teller analogy reminds me of someone who just wants to get the kudos for running a successful endeavor, without accepting any responsibility for when things go south.

What kudos have I asked for exactly?

And as far as hiding behind your medical condition ... nevermind. I'm not even going to stoop to that level.

That's interesting. During your time here, you've referenced your own medical conditions numerous times to explain why they made it difficult to fulfill your functions here. If I recall, the community was nothing but supportive every time. Were you hiding behind your medical condition? What level exactly were you stooping to by offering the explanation?

Asperger's Syndrome is something I struggle with every day. It keeps me disconnected from a society that I long to be a part of, and understanding my own difficulties is not enough. I can be entirely offensive to a person and have never meant or intended to be so. I can say things that are wildly inappropriate, alienate myself from a group I'm trying to belong to and never realize that I did so until it was too late.

But I don't hide behind this condition. I don't accidentally misread a social situation and say "Deal with it, I have AS." There have been a couple times I've been inappropriate or offensive in chat and didn't realize it. But I have friends who make me aware of my social snafus, and I speak at length with the people I offended to resolve the misunderstanding. I work to overcome the challenges of this condition, and anyone here who knows me will tell you exactly the same.

I don't see the ideals of human interaction the way most people do. That's a fact. That's why I explain my own difficulties and call on the help of others. I don't see that as stooping to any level. I don't see how you do either.

On topic - every system has flaws. But you're not even trying to come up with a solution

You can keep trying to hammer this frame into place, but it won't make it any less false.

I can honestly say that teamwork is definitely the basis for a stronger decision overall.

I agree. That's exactly why I've called for it. In spirit while rating/voting, in practice by calling for this discussion on suggestions to improve the system.

As for the nominations, if someone were to run with that idea, a site mod/admin could simply check the IP's, and identities of the nominating parties. If it were in question, it would most likely show up, and it wouldn't create a huge workload, as I doubt you'd have more than 10-20 nominations at a given time anyways. Granted, the idea isn't flawless, but it holds those members accountable who would nominate a tease in the first place. My only gripe with my own suggestion is it only solves the nomination process - it doesn't preclude the possibility of the actual TOTM vote from being manipulated.

As Human said, the idea is to make the system harder to crack, not impossible. Including a personal nomination from each site member instead of going by ratings is a good idea. I'd like very much to keep the good ideas rolling in this thread.

[Human]

For the TOTM voting: what if we require that only people with 50+ posts can vote?

Just using my own posting history for example, it would have taken me months to earn the right to vote under this system. And sadly I've seen that level of lunacy you describe with my own eyes.

To reference Ratatouille, this site has always operated under an "Anyone Can Cook" philosophy, and I wouldn't want to suggest denying any facet of the site to its members, no matter how venerable or not they are.

A person voting does not necessarily mean that that person or milovana gets some benifit out of it.

For ex:
Consider a scenario in which all voters are honest.
Let the group of members with under 50 posts be denoted X, the group of 50+ members Y
Also, assume that the voting distribution of X is the same as that of Y.
Then, the TOTM will be the same if we take the votes of X+Y or only of Y.
In fact, we could allow everyone to vote, and just throw the votes of X into trash, finally keeping only the votes of Y without changing the outcome.

So, in case everyone is honest, we would lose nothing by restricting the votes to just Y.
X is making no positive contribution. so no harm done

Now, consider the scenario where some members are dishonest and have multiple accounts. It seems reasonable to assume that such multiple accounts will be more in the set X.
Then, by not allowing X to vote, the honest memers in X are actually making a positive contribution, that of killing a lot of spurious votes.


Now, the above analysis assumes that the voting distribution of honest members of X is the same as that of honest members of Y. I dont know if there is a log of who voted what for past TOTMs to test this.

[Alliteration]

Let the group of members with under 50 posts be denoted X, the group of 50+ members Y

Let the group of members who are under 30 years of age be denoted X, the group of 30+ members Y.
Let the group of members who are male be denoted X, the group of female members Y.
Let the group of members who are black be denoted X, the group of non-black members Y.

This doesn't work. It's just prejudice against people who may have been here a long time, who contribute to chat, and who read or write teases often, but don't post often. How would you feel if your vote was thrown out because of some arbitrary criteria?

Also, assume that the voting distribution of X is the same as that of Y.

This seems like a dangerous thing to assume. Even if everyone is honest, the distribution is most likely not even, for many reasons.

So, in case everyone is honest, we would lose nothing by restricting the votes to just Y.
X is making no positive contribution. so no harm done

Not necessarily, as "swing votes" come into play here. Say the TOTM is nearing the end of the voting period, with two teases very close - tease 1 has 10 votes, while tease 2 has 9 votes (measured only by Y votes). Meanwhile, a member of Y is debating which tease to vote for. He comes to the conclusion that to him, both teases are equally good, and so decides to vote on 2, putting 1 and 2 into a tiebreaker round.

Now add in all the votes from X. While the ratio of votes for 1 and 2 will remain the same (10:9), if we double the number of votes, we get 20 votes to 18 votes, with the same 10:9 ratio. Now, Y's vote no longer results in a tiebreaker.

The more (honest) votes you have, the more accurate the results will be. Larger sample sizes are more accurate.

[Alliteration]

Including a personal nomination from each site member instead of going by ratings is a good idea.

I agree. One issue I can see with it is that we might end up with a lot of nominations, which doesn't lend itself well to a single-round system. Maybe we should require two or three nominations for a tease to be selected? I also think we shouldn't be allowed to nominate our own teases. Another issue is time - do we give a full week for nominations, then another full week for votes? Or do we do 4 days/3 days?

My only gripe with my own suggestion is it only solves the nomination process - it doesn't preclude the possibility of the actual TOTM vote from being manipulated.

I agree with this as well. Maybe we could combine the idea with voting via a post, instead of a poll, and have an admin check IPs of the posters for duplicates?

------------

Here's an idea of my own - what if we lowered the threshold for a tease to be nominated to 3.0, or 3.5, and included every tease over this threshold in a tiered/bracketed tournament? Or maybe, the highest-rated 8 or 16 teases? While this would actually make it easier for a tease to be artifically voted up to be nominated, it would at the same time make it harder for a tease to be artifically voted down to not be nominated. After that, I would think that voting via posts with IP checks would take care of any tease that doesn't belong there.

If something like this, or the above idea, could be implemented, I'd be more than happy to check the IPs myself at the end of each voting period (assuming anyone trusts me with that power ).

[Human]

How would you feel if your vote was thrown out because of some arbitrary criteria?

Depends on what the gain is. In the example I gave, group X would be unaware if their vote was taken or not in the first scenario.
In the second case, they are making positive contribution by accepting that their votes do not count.
I would be fine with my vote not being counted if there is some benifit.

Also, assume that the voting distribution of X is the same as that of Y.

This seems like a dangerous thing to assume. Even if everyone is honest, the distribution is most likely not even, for many reasons.

Correct. This hypothesis needs to be tested.

So, in case everyone is honest, we would lose nothing by restricting the votes to just Y.
X is making no positive contribution. so no harm done

Not necessarily, as "swing votes" come into play here. Say the TOTM is nearing the end of the voting period, with two teases very close - tease 1 has 10 votes, while tease 2 has 9 votes (measured only by Y votes). Meanwhile, a member of Y is debating which tease to vote for. He comes to the conclusion that to him, both teases are equally good, and so decides to vote on 2, putting 1 and 2 into a tiebreaker round.

Now add in all the votes from X. While the ratio of votes for 1 and 2 will remain the same (10:9), if we double the number of votes, we get 20 votes to 18 votes, with the same 10:9 ratio. Now, Y's vote no longer results in a tiebreaker.

Correct. But such events are rare.

The more (honest) votes you have, the more accurate the results will be. Larger sample sizes are more accurate.

And the more dishonest votes you have, the less accurate the results. The benifit has to be weighed against the costs. If we can eliminate 90% of the dishonest votes costing us 20% of the honest votes, it might be worthwhile.