Remove ads

Dragon Ball: After the End

Voting is open
Reader mode
@PoptartProdigy So since this thing is about people not voting and how to get people to vote, I thought that as someone who didn't vote I might as well share the reasons I didn't vote.

The first reason what that I first read the chapter shortly after it was posted. None of the default options seemed like great ideas and no one had offered better ones yet.

The second reason is that this is a huge vote. Not in the "the vote is long" sense (though it got pretty long) but in the sense that we're up against a powerful opponent we cannot afford to lose against who we just learned we failed to properly prepare half as well as we thought against. This is a vote that really, in my opinion, requires the people who spend absurd amounts of time to carry. They know the quest and the little details better than anyone but you, so they're our best hope when we're in this situation.

The third reason is that the plans all seem pretty good. Good enough that without spending a whole lot more time in the thread than I have to spend, I honestly can't form much of an opinion on them. There are no bad plans that cause an immediate "vote for something now so that doesn't win" reaction. All the votes are well thought out enough that I wouldn't be bothered if any of them won.

So that's why I personally didn't vote this update.
 
So basically...simplest boost: Make sure the default options are at least, adequate, a solid B to C grade choice. That'd actually help shape the write ins a lot, because rather than jumping off from scratch, they can compare and evaluate against the defaults, and then figure out if this is better or worse. It'd help voting as well, since voters can compare the write ins and get a decent sense of how good it is
 
Somehwar ninjaed by Veekie, but I'm going to echo @Red Flag 's advice from the thread that was posted. None of the starting options should necessarily be bad choices in most circumstances, but they should be options that wouldn't be terrible if picked by most players, but still provide a good foundation for write ins.
 
KnightDisciple said:
"Filthy Casuals" was literally typed a few posts ago by someone that multiple people have said "You're totally correct about what Poptart should do", so it's a bit frustrating to have someone act like that sort of language isn't being used.

As well, the idea of "needing high-information voters" is a bit odd...everyone has access to the Quest? I would think you of all people would be leery of creating a sort of "upper class" of Quest Voters, with as vocal as you've been in the past about separation of information in Quests where there's a Discord.

For me this is as much about attitude as anything; this idea that the healthiest Quest are the ones that explicitly reward people who pour huge amounts of time and focus into nit-picking over-detailed plans that effectively lock out engagement by people even slightly less invested than those people.

The fact that the top 2 plans (before things got scrubbed) were basically identical and had all the momentum, and a notably different plan that explicitly and intentionally didn't incorporate items was unlikely to gain momentum because it was more than 2 hours newer doesn't help.

When we get giant write-in plans like what we had, with labyrinths of if-then conditions, part of the problem can be that if the two leading plans are nearly identical (which these were) getting more explicitly unique plans in play is highly difficult.

And if the first couple plans are explicitly made by High Information Voters (is there a badge or something they get?), but the next plan (well-constructed that it might be) isn't, doesn't that implicitly favor the first plans?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Leaving aside the obviously tongue-in-cheek single use of a term that is already used as a humorous exaggeration, I don't quite follow your argument. Later plans being introduced later is of course a shame, but a plan not incorporating items that have already been discussed and generally agreed on as good ideas without really arguing why they shouldn't be included? It seems fairly obvious that even without the headstart that plan shouldn't do as well.

And as you say, "High Information" planners don't get a badge, so the only considerations are plan quality and whether it was introduced early enough for drive-by voters to see it. That High Information voters tend to create better plans seems pretty obvious to me - are you saying we should favour the plans of less well informed voters deliberately? Because that seems very, very silly.
 
Deathbybunnies said:
Leaving aside the obviously tongue-in-cheek single use of a term that is already used as a humorous exaggeration, I don't quite follow your argument. Later plans being introduced later is of course a shame, but a plan not incorporating items that have already been discussed and generally agreed on as good ideas without really arguing why they shouldn't be included? It seems fairly obvious that even without the headstart that plan shouldn't do as well.

And as you say, "High Information" planners don't get a badge, so the only considerations are plan quality and whether it was introduced early enough for drive-by voters to see it. That High Information voters tend to create better plans seems pretty obvious to me - are you saying we should favour the plans of less well informed voters deliberately? Because that seems very, very silly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"Generally agreed on", with regards to the Power Ball, seems a stretch, as a non-zero number of thread participants voiced concerns about the idea.

And saying that the HIVs make "better" plans just because they're "High Information" is suspect. Do we have proof the plans are better, or just wordier?
 
KnightDisciple said:
"Generally agreed on", with regards to the Power Ball, seems a stretch, as a non-zero number of thread participants voiced concerns about the idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And they presumably voted for the version of the plan without that option, or were convinced by the other voters. That's how voting works. That the other plan might have gained more traction for coming first is unfortunate (and a solution to that would be nice) but a separate issue.

KnightDisciple said:
And saying that the HIVs make "better" plans just because they're "High Information" is suspect. Do we have proof the plans are better, or just wordier?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Someone with more information about something will, on average, make better plans regarding that something than someone who doesn't. You can't plan to aim for a weak spot or use an ability if you don't know it exists. The plans being "wordier" because they have more to work with does make them on average better - you're implying that a shorter plan could cover just as much, but all those words are there to cover different options. "Do A and B" is necessarily longer than just "Do A". Unless B is actively harmful - which is almost certainly not the case, else people wouldn't put it in - it's a better plan for covering more possibilities.

Are you really so dismissive of the idea that someone who's spent more time on something will tend to do better at it?
 
Deathbybunnies said:
And they presumably voted for the version of the plan without that option, or were convinced by the other voters. That's how voting works. That the other plan might have gained more traction for coming first is unfortunate (and a solution to that would be nice) but a separate issue.


Someone with more information about something will, on average, make better plans regarding that something than someone who doesn't. You can't plan to aim for a weak spot or use an ability if you don't know it exists. The plans being "wordier" because they have more to work with does make them on average better - you're implying that a shorter plan could cover just as much, but all those words are there to cover different options. "Do A and B" is necessarily longer than just "Do A". Unless B is actively harmful - which is almost certainly not the case, else people wouldn't put it in - it's a better plan for covering more possibilities.

Are you really so dismissive of the idea that someone who's spent more time on something will tend to do better at it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let me put this a different way: at what level of knowledge or "investment" would someone count as having sufficiently more information to make "better" plans?

And if this question seems pedantic, maybe you see the danger of people talking about "High Information Voters" as if that's some special class of people?
 
KnightDisciple said:
Let me put this a different way: at what level of knowledge or "investment" would someone count as having sufficiently more information to make "better" plans?

And if this question seems pedantic, maybe you see the danger of people talking about "High Information Voters" as if that's some special class of people?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, we're approaching this from two different directions. You're annoyed people are claiming only heavily-invested voters can make plans, where I was annoyed you appeared to be claiming that someone who knows very little will make as good of a plan as someone who is heavily "invested". I would expect a strong correlation between investment and plan quality, but I would hope discussion would make the better plan easier to judge, so I'd hardly prevent people who aren't 100% down with all the details from making plans. However...

If you really want my opinion, having people read the discussion before voting would be an ideal level of "investment" - you don't have to know all the background details, but you should at least be aware of the arguments being made for and against plans. I dislike "drive-by" voting a great deal. Why even bother discussing the plan if the deciding factor is going to be voters who don't read the discussion? And if their votes end up superfluous to the result, why do they matter? Their investment is barely above that of a passive reader - who might very well be enjoying the story, but not be invested enough to want to vote. I read several quests without voting on them for exactly this reason - I don't care enough to read the discussion, and throwing out an essentially "blind" vote seems like a shitty thing to do.

Of course there's no way you could possibly enforce such a thing, so I'll just keep being annoyed.
 
There's an easy solution. Ban discussion and use secret ballots. If drive-by voters really are harmless there's nothing lost by just making everybody behave like them, right?



KnightDisciple said:
"Generally agreed on", with regards to the Power Ball, seems a stretch, as a non-zero number of thread participants voiced concerns about the idea.

And saying that the HIVs make "better" plans just because they're "High Information" is suspect. Do we have proof the plans are better, or just wordier?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...did you really just ask for proof that pooled knowledge and experience makes for better planning than individual ignorance and impulsiveness?
 
Okay, folks, apparently me announcing after reading the discussion that I was pushing the update back a day didn't do it, so let me make it very obvious: that will be enough, thank you. You all aren't even arguing with me at this point, counterproductive as that would be with your current tactics. If you want to argue about default options versus essay-length write-ins in general, take it elsewhere.
 
:o

I think there is now more discussion about how to vote, the ideal level of involvement, pro/cons of the current vote system and how/if to change it that about the plan itself.

The discussion is really interesting, but also distracting.

I'll just say that i can understand both positions, but that the problem has in my opinion been blown up a bit out of proportion.


I just hope this little debate won't delay the update too much ( i want to see what happens next!:p), or that the system isn't changed radically just on the problems of one single planning session. Perfect or not, things were working decently until now. I'd wait to see if the problem presents itself again before making major changes.

On a completely different note, i'd love it if Terminus quest went out of hiatus @PoptartProdigy
I had JUST caught up with it when it went into hiatus! :cry:
 
Should we instead be using the extra time to consider more options and streamline our fighting plan instead to make it less like a block of text? Because I am still a bit sckeptical of the "Attack Yammar to see if Berra and Vegeta assist him" bit.
 
PoptartProdigy said:
Okay, folks, apparently me announcing after reading the discussion that I was pushing the update back a day didn't do it, so let me make it very obvious: that will be enough, thank you. You all aren't even arguing with me at this point, counterproductive as that would be with your current tactics. If you want to argue about default options versus essay-length write-ins in general, take it elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That was meant to be a punishment? I figured that you were saying that you were busy or needed some time to think things through.
 
Last edited:
Bakkasama said:
Should we instead be using the extra time to consider more options and streamline our fighting plan instead to make it less like a block of text? Because I am still a bit sckeptical of the "Attack Yammar to see if Berra and Vegeta assist him" bit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd be hesitant to delve too deeply into plans until we see the next turn and vote options.
 
I think my closing thoughts of those debacle can be summed up rather simply.

What does poptart have against keyboards? tthey seems particularly intent on making his read base's keyboards break through wear and tear.
 
Last edited:
A thought on the chapter: given the conceptual basis of the exiles' magic (i.e. sealing) how is Dandeer able to do this kind of direct mind control? We know she can seal away memories, but the mc we seen her do before, while terrifying, is different from the kind of puppetry she is doing now.

Heck even Babidi, who was incredibly powerful compared to exile's magicians, only managed to control those who had evil in their hearts, and it still wasn't anything like this enslavement.
 
Wiadi said:
So is hunting through all the posts in the thread for plans to Like, rather than just picking things off the tally that look good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh, Like Voting is biased towards voters who are willing to skim through the pages and drop a like at what catches their eye. Or at least, that's it's minimum standard for healthy participation.

Tired me also didn't consider that I've only really seen it in smaller quests, so in retrospect I don't know how well it would work out.



Crocea_mors said:
I think my closing thoughts of those debacle can be summed up rather simply.

What does poptart have against keyboards? He seems particularly intent on making his read base's keyboards break through wear and tear.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Poptart's preferred pronoun is "They" the last time I checked. I doubt you meant any harm, just be mindful in the future.



...I think Poptart was convinced to add it to one of their posts on the front page a while ago although this might be the quest that always had it and it was the Mass Effect one it got added to. Is it still there?
 
Blonddude42 said:
...I think Poptart was convinced to add it to one of their posts on the front page a while ago although this might be the quest that always had it and it was the Mass Effect one it got added to. Is it still there?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Informational Threadmarks -> Lore Screen -> Useful Information -> QM Quirks -> What's Your Gender?

So...it's there, but a bit buried.
 
All the methods that they might be mind controlled suggest that they are not firing at full mentally.
Simon_Jester said:
How about the phrasing "The best way to protect Dandeer is to stop her! She's in more danger from all this fighting than she would be from a trial!" Would that be a Communications check?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

PoptartProdigy said:
That would be Communication.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I see no reason that we can't try both. There is a good chance that they are really dumb right now.
 
SurpriseMe said:
Somehwar ninjaed by Veekie, but I'm going to echo @Red Flag 's advice from the thread that was posted. None of the starting options should necessarily be bad choices in most circumstances, but they should be options that wouldn't be terrible if picked by most players, but still provide a good foundation for write ins.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Looks like this quest will be a good case for me to study the dynamics of elitism vs populism. All I have to say is: pick one style and run the quest like that. Don't try to do both.
 
Last edited:
Alert: Thread Policy
  • Staff Post
    • thread policy While debating the merits of respective questing philosophies is interesting, the author has asked that it be taken elsewhere. Further discussion will be treated as disruptive and potentially infracted under Rule 4. With that in mind, take care and be sure to enjoy the quest.

    Edit: This post will be unstickied in a few hours.
     
  • Staff Post
    • Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Voting is open
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top