• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

(Discussion) How this works

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
In response to people not knowing how projects work now.

Nothing the MBR does will ever automatically include all members of the MBR.

People who are long term members of the MBR are here because they applied to be part of a ready pool of individuals who are accepted as having the ability to contribute to projects.

MBR members are expected to suggest and take leadership on projects. Doing so gives you certain rights, such as the ability to bring non-MBR members in to specifically work on a project. This was done with the elo project, and is being done with the tier list project. Membership for those individuals is limited to amount of time they are needed to contribute to the project. They can also be considered for long term membership, but are still required to do all the application formalities.


Per Umbreon in the Tier List thread:
1. ...why? this suggests that some members aren't qualified, or that they shouldn't be in the MBR.

2. you're kind of saying that all MBR members are not equal, which sounds like a quality problem. why are we trying to sidestep a problem that we can just resolve prior?


Its silly for people to be able to come back and just vote on a tier list when they haven't contributed to anything ever. Decisions are made after reasonable amounts of discussion. Nothing should just be taken at face value.

Everyone back here is in the same pool of qualified members, but inclusion in projects is based on willingness to contribute and areas of expertise. Project leaders get the say in who gets to be part of their project. I wouldn't even have a problem with there being two competing MBR tier list projects. Part of this is that, when something is published as being MBR-backed, the project leader name is included, as well as the individuals who contributed. This moves away from "we all did this" and gives credit where it is due.

I do not believe that all MBR members are equal. Some people are more oriented towards strategy discussion. Others have legitimate extensive knowledge of characters. Others are just players who have a high level of play. We don't all share the exact same strengths in every aspect. I wouldn't want Kish contributing to the tier list discussion with his opinion on characters as he is several steps removed from current tournament play. This directs no offense to Kish, as his opinion on other matters is highly valued, and I would be more than willing to be proven wrong if he feels this is not an accurate statement.

To reiterate, part of the job of the project leader is to first determine who out of the MBR pool is most qualified to contribute to the project, and then if they have any additional external resources who would be beneficial, to also bring them in as temps.

Questions/comments/arguments?
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I have several ideas to bring to the table, of which I'd like you to consider:

Nothing the MBR does will ever automatically include all members of the MBR.

People who are long term members of the MBR are here because they applied to be part of a ready pool of individuals who are accepted as having the ability to contribute to projects.

MBR members are expected to suggest and take leadership on projects. Doing so gives you certain rights, such as the ability to bring non-MBR members in to specifically work on a project. This was done with the elo project, and is being done with the tier list project. Membership for those individuals is limited to amount of time they are needed to contribute to the project. They can also be considered for long term membership, but are still required to do all the application formalities.
I disagree with nothing here.

Its silly for people to be able to come back and just vote on a tier list when they haven't contributed to anything ever. Decisions are made after reasonable amounts of discussion. Nothing should just be taken at face value.

Everyone back here is in the same pool of qualified members, but inclusion in projects is based on willingness to contribute and areas of expertise. Project leaders get the say in who gets to be part of their project. I wouldn't even have a problem with there being two competing MBR tier list projects. Part of this is that, when something is published as being MBR-backed, the project leader name is included, as well as the individuals who contributed. This moves away from "we all did this" and gives credit where it is due.
When you suggest to the project leader to pick a specified pool of participants, you have no longer quantified them based on willingness to contribute. If you really wanted to do this, you would simply ask the members as a whole, detail them with your ideal parameters, and then add participants based on the response. You have made that decision for them.

A few other minor things here:

We are not particularly endorsing the "we all did this" mentality. If you'll notice from the last tier list, all voter names are clearly given. The only difference is that I did not designate myself as the project leader, which we can fix this time around. Credit is being given where it is due already.

I think two tier lists could bring more to the table, or it could be a waste of our intellectual resources to keep the pools of thought isolated from one another. I'd be willing to try it as an experiment.

Either way, I offer no opposition to a required participation prior to having a validated vote. The only problem that arises here is to gauge how much participation or what quality of participation yields a qualified vote. Usually omitting results is done so in the name of statistical accuracy to remove outliers. So for example, If KirbyKaze irrationally or rationally argues Kirby into the top 3, is that vote valid? How much does he have to prove his stance? And of what quality must that stance be to accept his idea? Is it still an outlier that should be corrected? As you can see, required participation raises its own issues that should be clarified prior to the discussion so everyone knows how they should go about the discussion correctly from the start.

I do think that the added credibility can benefit the value of the finished product, and if you want to bridge your idea to the community, it might even be a good idea to close and move the thread to Melee Discussion when we're done.

I do not believe that all MBR members are equal. Some people are more oriented towards strategy discussion. Others have legitimate extensive knowledge of characters. Others are just players who have a high level of play. We don't all share the exact same strengths in every aspect. I wouldn't want Kish contributing to the tier list discussion with his opinion on characters as he is several steps removed from current tournament play. This directs no offense to Kish, as his opinion on other matters is highly valued, and I would be more than willing to be proven wrong if he feels this is not an accurate statement.

To reiterate, part of the job of the project leader is to first determine who out of the MBR pool is most qualified to contribute to the project, and then if they have any additional external resources who would be beneficial, to also bring them in as temps.
If you think that the MBR has members that are not qualified to vote, why not disqualify them based on their discussion material? This lets you know exactly how qualified or unqualified everyone is, as well as adding their insight to the discussion thread to benefit the rest of the project. Or, you can also politely ask those members to refrain from voting citing the given disconnect that you already acknowledge. This happened in the last tier list, and I have already refused sveet on his request that I vote. As far as I know, those that are not qualified via participating in tournaments are quite aware of it and will reasonably do as you ask.

Also, to prove you wrong, Kish would have to participate in the discussion thread and then combat resistance for being excluded from the initial group. There's really not much incentive to do so.

I have already addressed everything in your final summary.

Do you see where this is going? We have better methods for what you are trying to accomplish. We should dedicate some time to intelligent design for these projects.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
When you suggest to the project leader to pick a specified pool of participants, you have no longer quantified them based on willingness to contribute. If you really wanted to do this, you would simply ask the members as a whole, detail them with your ideal parameters, and then add participants based on the response. You have made that decision for them.
Everyone in the MBR is assumed to be "willing to contribute" by default. That's the point of long term membership. A pool of members we prioritize in consideration and selection for pretty much any project. You may choose to not contribute after being asked, as you have done.


A few other minor things here:

We are not particularly endorsing the "we all did this" mentality. If you'll notice from the last tier list, all voter names are clearly given. The only difference is that I did not designate myself as the project leader, which we can fix this time around. Credit is being given where it is due already.
The focus is more on who the "we" is. The credit is a minor variable. The bigger issue I have with the previous group of members, considering that we didn't actively exclude anyone, was this:

Aldwyn
Alex Strife
Amsah
Armada
Ignatius
Luma
Remen
Tero
The Cape
Utto

This is me picking out names at first glance that strike me as odd. A few on this list could be argued as legitimate, and I could probably argue a few more out of the full list that should have been excluded.

Why are a handful of PAL players voting on the NTSC list (this is more specific to the 2010 list, as the PAL players had far less experience in NTSC at the time, but I still have issue with Armada and Leffen being included in the current project group). Why is Alex Strife included in the voting. Why is Zach, who is years removed from the scene, included. This doesn't even bring up Forward's attempted manipulation of the list by intentionally ranking Pikachu much higher than he actually considers the character.

I want to build up the list of members in projects, not break down from the total pool of members in the MBR. People are asked if they want to participate. Let them decide yes or no.

As a side note: It is much easier to make progress with a smaller group of individuals working on a project than it is with a massive group. Once you increase the number of members contributing, conversation begins to deviate rapidly, points are lost, opinions stay unchanged, etc etc. You want focus groups, not open-forum discussion.

I think two tier lists could bring more to the table, or it could be a waste of our intellectual resources to keep the pools of thought isolated from one another. I'd be willing to try it as an experiment.

Either way, I offer no opposition to a required participation prior to having a validated vote. The only problem that arises here is to gauge how much participation or what quality of participation yields a qualified vote. Usually omitting results is done so in the name of statistical accuracy to remove outliers. So for example, If KirbyKaze irrationally or rationally argues Kirby into the top 3, is that vote valid? How much does he have to prove his stance? And of what quality must that stance be to accept his idea? Is it still an outlier that should be corrected? As you can see, required participation raises its own issues that should be clarified prior to the discussion so everyone knows how they should go about the discussion correctly from the start.

I do think that the added credibility can benefit the value of the finished product, and if you want to bridge your idea to the community, it might even be a good idea to close and move the thread to Melee Discussion when we're done.
These points will be more for Sveet to address as project lead for that project. I'm simply providing framework for how to create a project and what the processes involved will be. All of the decisions that get made as far as decision making process and determination of membership will be required to be published with the list, as one of our goals is visibility.

It will be Sveet's job to oversee discussion and determine if someone isn't contributing to the extent that should grant them a say in the final outcome.

If you think that the MBR has members that are not qualified to vote, why not disqualify them based on their discussion material? This lets you know exactly how qualified or unqualified everyone is, as well as adding their insight to the discussion thread to benefit the rest of the project. Or, you can also politely ask those members to refrain from voting citing the given disconnect that you already acknowledge. This happened in the last tier list, and I have already refused sveet on his request that I vote. As far as I know, those that are not qualified via participating in tournaments are quite aware of it and will reasonably do as you ask.

Also, to prove you wrong, Kish would have to participate in the discussion thread and then combat resistance for being excluded from the initial group. There's really not much incentive to do so.
This leads to abuse. "We don't agree with this person, so they will be excluded, rather than their arguments considered." If someone wants to be included on a project and isn't, they can discuss it with that project leader, and if they receive an insufficient response, they can bring it up with me. I refrained from the last vote because I felt the system being used to create the list, as well as the membership included in the vote, was not of sufficient value. And I simply don't like tier lists.

I have already addressed everything in your final summary.

Do you see where this is going? We have better methods for what you are trying to accomplish. We should dedicate some time to intelligent design for these projects.
Everything is up for discussion, always. Suggestion of alternative methods paired with pro/con against current methods will make the most progress towards change.

You know I'm always down for theorycrafting. :)
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Everyone in the MBR is assumed to be "willing to contribute" by default. That's the point of long term membership. A pool of members we prioritize in consideration and selection for pretty much any project. You may choose to not contribute after being asked, as you have done.

The focus is more on who the "we" is. The credit is a minor variable. The bigger issue I have with the previous group of members, considering that we didn't actively exclude anyone, was this:

Aldwyn
Alex Strife
Amsah
Armada
Ignatius
Luma
Remen
Tero
The Cape
Utto

This is me picking out names at first glance that strike me as odd. A few on this list could be argued as legitimate, and I could probably argue a few more out of the full list that should have been excluded.

Why are a handful of PAL players voting on the NTSC list (this is more specific to the 2010 list, as the PAL players had far less experience in NTSC at the time, but I still have issue with Armada and Leffen being included in the current project group). Why is Alex Strife included in the voting. Why is Zach, who is years removed from the scene, included. This doesn't even bring up Forward's attempted manipulation of the list by intentionally ranking Pikachu much higher than he actually considers the character.
No disagreement.

I want to build up the list of members in projects, not break down from the total pool of members in the MBR. People are asked if they want to participate. Let them decide yes or no.
This is where my disagreement lies. By excluding members from even participating in the discussion, you lose out on a lot of potential insight as to why they are right or wrong. Even if you pick your qualifying voters after the discussion, it is strictly beneficial to have as much educated input as possible.

As a side note: It is much easier to make progress with a smaller group of individuals working on a project than it is with a massive group. Once you increase the number of members contributing, conversation begins to deviate rapidly, points are lost, opinions stay unchanged, etc etc. You want focus groups, not open-forum discussion.
I believe that the increase of quality to be worth the additional difficulty.

These points will be more for Sveet to address as project lead for that project. I'm simply providing framework for how to create a project and what the processes involved will be. All of the decisions that get made as far as decision making process and determination of membership will be required to be published with the list, as one of our goals is visibility.

It will be Sveet's job to oversee discussion and determine if someone isn't contributing to the extent that should grant them a say in the final outcome.
Obviously. No disagreement.

This leads to abuse. "We don't agree with this person, so they will be excluded, rather than their arguments considered." If someone wants to be included on a project and isn't, they can discuss it with that project leader, and if they receive an insufficient response, they can bring it up with me. I refrained from the last vote because I felt the system being used to create the list, as well as the membership included in the vote, was not of sufficient value. And I simply don't like tier lists.
Any judgment call can lead to abuse, so this says very little. As I understand it, the current method discourages non-panelists from making any contributions. Even if you don't think they are qualified to vote, they are certainly qualified to contribute to the discussion leading to the vote, even if all it means is shooting down forward's stance on pikachu.

Even when you say that Kish isn't qualified to vote, I'm going to question why Little England is qualified to vote instead. We need to define what "qualified" means, and I need you to tell me why we're doing this prior to the discussion instead of after it when everything has been put onto the table for consideration.

I don't think your qualification idea is without merit, but it's poorly defined and disregards the intellect available to you that could be put to better use. It's also the basis of my distaste for the regional leaders structure or the necessity for another back room, but those can be saved for another time. You surely understand my point of view for this particular subject.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I don't believe its ever been said that people outside of a project couldn't participate in the discussion...

I believe people were coming and going in the elo project discussion, and I actually liked it that way. The people who ultimately comprise the project group and have the final say in the order of the list are simply the ones who need to be convinced. Anyone could take up the task of doing the convincing... This is results gathered by making effective arguments rather than "we'll just sum the opinion of everyone".

Back to the point on visibility, and merging it with your final point, I do agree that it is important to define qualification, but only up to the point where we explain why someone is included in the group, not why they are in and someone else isn't. To that point, it might be a good idea to have small blurbs about each of the members included, citing the reasons that they were selected, to further the ability to display credibility. I don't want any project group to have members who are on just because the project leader is friends with them or similar trivial reasons.

In this sense, what does it matter which MBR members are included in the project vote group? All of us have respect for each other. As long as the base membership of any project isn't starting out biased and all in agreement, as long as there is conversation to move opinions from point A to point B, we could list a project leader, voters, and contributors all separately.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
The tier list is still ultimately a product of consensus. No matter how much discussion there is, it's determined by votes. It's one of those projects where you almost need a large group of people (30+ ideally), if anything so outlier votes don't have such a heavy influence. Considering MBR membership is already filtered and the MBR has severe activity issues, it doesn't make much sense to restrict it even further for a project that benefits from large numbers. Saying that people who haven't been active shouldn't vote also doesn't make much sense when you bring in three outsiders and most people have not been active. This could have been a great way to get people more involved.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
I have chosen a panel of people who fit a few criteria. Predominately I wanted people who could put their opinions into words well and be open minded about other's opinions. On top of that, I wanted skilled players.

As both Cactuar and Umbreon have said, every member of the MBR has different talents. While I have respect for every one of them and do not disagree with their inclusion in the MBR, I do recognize that they are not all here for the same reason. Nobody is barred from the discussion, and if someone makes an impression I would consider extending a panel invitation.

Both Cactuar and Umbreon's approaches have their merits. Being fully open to the entire MBR allows everyone's point of views to mingle and helps to keep everyone honest. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who would like to vote simply to say they participated, without having contributed to the discussion. Cactuar suggested to select a panel ahead of time. Umbreon suggested an alternate method, where discussion is open and voters are chosen from those who contributed to the discussion.

By choosing the panel ahead of time, it leaves people out whom would have been assets to the project. By choosing the panel at the end, the line between censorship and choosing quality participants can be fuzzy. It is also much harder to motivate a large group of people into acting; it is much easier to interact with those whom are most motivated. Both methods rely heavily on the judgement of the project leader, which is something that is taboo.

As the project leader, I have done my best to be as objective as possible in picking out individuals who I felt would be beneficial to the project. I also see the pros of both methods so I have chosen a compromise between the two.

And for the record, I will be monitoring the amount of participation of each panelist and non-panelist participant and it will be taken into consideration for when the time comes to vote.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
What I'm confused about is that selecting a panel suggests those people are the ones discussing and voting and everyone else is spectating. What I'm getting from here though is that the selected people can vote no matter what, but everyone else can still discuss and maybe vote if they stand out enough? And if the chosen ones aren't active they can have their vote revoked? This is still pretty unclear to me, which is why I'm asking.

:phone:
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
Pretty much. The people I selected are the ones I thought that would have a lot to contribute. They are people I see posting advice and opinions on the boards and generally being good posters. I am not close minded and I know others could easily shine as well. For that reason I am trying to keep the discussions as transparent as possible and to get input from as many sources as possible. I have even posted the compiled preliminary list in the public forums for those who are interested to discuss.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
What I'm confused about is that selecting a panel suggests those people are the ones discussing and voting and everyone else is spectating. What I'm getting from here though is that the selected people can vote no matter what, but everyone else can still discuss and maybe vote if they stand out enough? And if the chosen ones aren't active they can have their vote revoked? This is still pretty unclear to me, which is why I'm asking.

:phone:
I thought this very same thing.

I really have no issue with how you go about the project so long as the design intelligently eliminates as many holes as we can see prior to execution.

I still don't like that you're skewing toward better players, but I don't really have an alternative off-hand.
 

Little England

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,148
Location
Purdue, W Lafayette IN Rancho Cucamonga, SoCal
Even when you say that Kish isn't qualified to vote, I'm going to question why Little England is qualified to vote instead. We need to define what "qualified" means, and I need you to tell me why we're doing this prior to the discussion instead of after it when everything has been put onto the table for consideration.
Why put me in the MBR if we're going to cherry pick those who are "qualified" to participate in it? That's a better question if you ask me.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
You guys do realize that part of the process back here is volunteering for projects, right? The projects have literally been listed since inception, and any of you could have volunteered to be part of any of the listed projects. Suddenly, the projects start and you feel excluded?

Mass inclusion in forthcoming projects was never a given. Just because you are in the MBR, doesn't mean you get a say in everything the MBR does. Sveet has been proactive in recruiting, not cherry-picking. If people want to be part of something, they should ask to be included before a project starts or early in the project life cycle.

Everyone in the MBR is allowed to volunteer and should generally be accepted onto projects, provided they volunteer by a certain point in the project's life cycle. The only ones who need any "qualifications" provided should be people external to the MBR who are being brought on specifically for a project. If someone volunteers internally and is rejected from the project, there will have to be reasons provided for their exclusion. Does this all make sense?

MBR members can literally volunteer for any project and should be accepted for it given:
1) They volunteered early enough.
2) The project leader still wants members.

If the project leader does not want more members, that is their call. If the project leader wants to exclude an MBR member, the reason needs to be provided.

Non-MBR members can be recruited by project leaders to specifically work on their project, but must provide qualifications/reasons for the recruits to be added to the project.


Simple.
 

Little England

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,148
Location
Purdue, W Lafayette IN Rancho Cucamonga, SoCal
Even when you say that Kish isn't qualified to vote, I'm going to question why Little England is qualified to vote instead. We need to define what "qualified" means, and I need you to tell me why we're doing this prior to the discussion instead of after it when everything has been put onto the table for consideration.
Why put me in the MBR if we're going to cherry pick those who are "qualified" to participate in it? That's a better question if you ask me.
Cactuar, my post above was more-or-less directed at Umbreon. I never felt excluded; Umbreon just seemed to make an accusation ("what makes Little England qualified") and I addressed it. It's common sense that anyone in the MBR would be encouraged to participate in MBR projects.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Cactuar, my post above was more-or-less directed at Umbreon. I never felt excluded; Umbreon just seemed to make an accusation ("what makes Little England qualified") and I addressed it. It's common sense that anyone in the MBR would be encouraged to participate in MBR projects.
I only picked you because I don't really know you, and by extension what you're capable of. It's a good example to illustrate my original point that we need to define and explain our intentions.

I rarely outright oppose anything as a project, I just dislike unintelligent design.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
To be honest, I don't really care. You guys can fight among yourselves and argue over which way is better, but you know whats worse than both of them? Not doing the project at all. If you're not satisfied with the results, feel free to organize your own tier list project. I will not be offended, I promise.

#idgaf
 

KishPrime

King of the Ship of Fools
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
7,802
Location
Indiana
I'd rather people listen to my opinions on stages than my opinions on characters. :p

Tier lists aren't that complicated, shouldn't be that hard, and their importance is minimal at this stage of the game. There frankly shouldn't be much disagreement at this point. <_< I'd probably be fine with one guy making whatever tweaks he felt like needed to be made.

Good luck with it!
 
Top Bottom