General Feedback and Ideas Thread

Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
#42
Ok sure. But at the very least, it shows that there is NO way that anyone who applied could be thinking "I want the leaders to see my application, but I want privacy from the back room" (which makes no sense anyway but whatever).
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,454
Location
Newfoundland, Canada!
#43
I suppose it does. But since i never had anything to do with that i suppose this is between you and AA now, not you and the BR leaders.

"I want the people in charge to see my application but no one else" really DOES make sense, stop with the trolling, you're jab comments are not needed or wanted.
 

dandan

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
1,373
#44
my only feedback is that we should do more things, lets get these matchup threads rolling. i am trying to help as much as i can with the pika one, aa needs to get on top of it :p
and hopefully the fox one could pick up soon.
 

SilentSlayers

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
328
#45
Ok sure. But at the very least, it shows that there is NO way that anyone who applied could be thinking "I want the leaders to see my application, but I want privacy from the back room" (which makes no sense anyway but whatever).
Stop saying stuff in that way please, it does make sense to me. Apparently it makes sense to Surri as well.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
#46
lol @ me being a "troll" here. As I said, I'm just confused as hell about the reasoning presented.

Can you give a realistic situation where someone would want only the leaders to see one's app? What if I don't want any of the leaders to read my application? Oh, it's too bad then, right?


My point is that it seems like there's another reason that the leaders did not release the applications. It would be nice to know why. That's my feedback.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,454
Location
Newfoundland, Canada!
#47
Can you give a realistic situation where someone would want only the leaders to see one's app? What if I don't want any of the leaders to read my application? Oh, it's too bad then, right?
when i first sent in an application to become mod. As FAR as i know only KirbyKing (owner at the time) seen it. Then when i left and came back i went to JV, and he re-routed me through the "hiring staff" (Mic_128 and Xivii).

And again when i applied for the colored post bit. All applications where sent to "Steel" no one else.

I doubt every other mod has seen my application nor has every other person with a color post bit
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
#48
I don't see how those situations are analogous. Are you saying that you specifically would NOT have wanted ANYONE to see your application for a colored post bit besides "Steel"?

I'm guessing that you wouldn't have cared if 10 other people looked at it too.


If I'm sending over my tax information or something, then I probably don't want too many people to see it. But I don't see how any info in a back room application is like that.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#49
:\ I completely forgot about adding that in, sort of did some stupid things independantly and got pulled back by surri...didn't edit it out though because I forgot about it...derp

The reason for the no-show...it was probably a knee-jerk, I acted independently, was reprimanded, everything to do with my independent act became a no-go...aside from that, there wasn't any actual consent involved anyway, and I doubt that everyone even read the thread properly - battlecow, for instance, copy-pasted his old application word-for-word, without even noticing the questions this round had changed somewhat.

ballin, stop saying everyone else's logic is flawed. You aren't fighting for points here: this isn't the debate hall. I also find your logic to be rather odd. Accept that there is a chance your logic isn't standard. Surri, that goes for you too, it would have been best to answer his question rather than take offence and start an argument.

If there are any more questions you have, feel free to ask them, this thread has gotten started on the wrong foot.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
#50
Ok, my question was what was the reason that the apps were not released to the back room, even for input rather than actual votes?

I know I'm making a big deal out of something that I said I didn't care much about, but I think the answer to this question might have implications for other things in the back room.

I made all the posts in this thread because I didn't think the answer to the above question really was "privacy".
 

SheerMadness

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
4,781
#51
Well now I think it's even more ridiculous that it was even stated that we would likely see the applications and no one who applied expressed any concern about it. And I seriously doubt it stopped even 1 person from applying.

The whole "it's reasonable for someone to expect privacy" argument is invalid now IMO.

We should see the apps during the reviewing process. I'm not sure why there should even be a question about it now.

EDIT: ballin I think we all doubt the issue is privacy here. It just seems like they don't want us to be fully part of the reviewing process for whatever reason. And by they I mean surri and asianaussie as boom has yet to post his opinion in here.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#52
Don't push it. We've already made the compromise and you will be able to make comments.

The reason that you didn't get to see the apps was primarily administrative. I added it without consent from the others and I take responsibility for it. If you're going to push tiny points like this when there is already a compromise, I may actually change my views regarding it. I have no intent of cutting anyone from discussion, given I already did so with surri/boom and this particular ****storm occurred because of it.

Boom states that he just thought of it as a privacy thing, I doubt he even read the thread itself.
 

SheerMadness

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
4,781
#53
We'll call it an executive decision. Compromise exists when both sides agree to something which hasn't happened here.

You guys wanted feedback and you got it. Successful thread so far. =]
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
9,681
#56
You'd like complete removal of the numerical ratios? I'm alright with that, since you've given legitimate reasoning for it (and it's rather arbitrary regardless).

I'll leave it up to each thread's manager.
Why did you completely ignore this post and the conversation here then?: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12144052&postcount=48

Not calling you out or anything, maybe you just didn't notice. I just remember being a little perturbed by this, because I don't like ratios, either.

@The current argument - Sorry Sheer, but I'm not adamant about being part of the reviewing process like you are. I'm completely fine with aa's compromise.

This type of mindset makes me very sad. :(
I agree. Disagreeing is one thing, but taking back your compromise? Seems rather spiteful TBH. I see no good reason to act that way.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#57
Eh, I sort of added in both systems, but I can see now that it really doesn't help much until the entire numerical ratio aspect is phased out. I guess I felt Nintendude put a more clarified argument forward.

I think my mindset was wrong, matchup 'tiers' aren't necessary.

This type of mindset makes me very sad. :(

More love, more questioning, more improvements. Little things count.
I can see why me saying that would make you feel that way, but I'm not taking it back. I gave reasoning, I was patient. ballin called us out for using 'troll logic' when I wholeheartedly believe he was using subjective experience to argue. It's nice that he's trying to pull for you guys, but this is a non-issue.

I take full responsibility for forgetting to edit out that part in the thread OP, and I can quote you the relevant posts reprimanding me regarding it. Things change.

If this matter balloons, I might consider adding 2 people who are prepared to be part of the application process (ie Sheer and somebody, I don't know if ballin actually wants to review or just criticise us some more) and give them an office (Application Committee or something) with applicant voting rights equal to the head council, but I'm not really in support of giving everyone a vote, even if the head council got veto powers or something dumb like that.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
2,366
Location
Northern VA, USA
#59
I can see why me saying that would make you feel that way, but I'm not taking it back. I gave reasoning, I was patient. ballin called us out for using 'troll logic' when I wholeheartedly believe he was using subjective experience to argue.
If that's the case, then it sounds like you're lowering yourself to his level.

Be a freethinker, stay objective and non-judgmental.
 

SheerMadness

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
4,781
#61
I take full responsibility for forgetting to edit out that part in the thread OP, and I can quote you the relevant posts reprimanding me regarding it. Things change.
I'd kinda like the see the quotes. And only if they were before this feedback thread came up. I figured nobody cared and or noticed it and it was left in because it wasn't that big of an issue.

Anyway I do not want to be part of a selective reviewing process. I want everyone to be part of it. If it were up to me everyone would not only see the apps but also get a vote. I'd advocate the same thing if I were a leader.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#62
I can't find the posts, it must be in an msn log or something, and I don't think I keep msn records on the home PC. I'll check and post them if I find them.

Anyway, I was definitely told off on more than one occasion, it's my fault for not editing it out. The reprimand was more for the fact that I didn't get a consensus rather than because of what I actually did.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
#63
I can see why me saying that would make you feel that way, but I'm not taking it back. I gave reasoning, I was patient. ballin called us out for using 'troll logic' when I wholeheartedly believe he was using subjective experience to argue. It's nice that he's trying to pull for you guys, but this is a non-issue.

I take full responsibility for forgetting to edit out that part in the thread OP, and I can quote you the relevant posts reprimanding me regarding it. Things change.

If this matter balloons, I might consider adding 2 people who are prepared to be part of the application process (ie Sheer and somebody, I don't know if ballin actually wants to review or just criticise us some more) and give them an office (Application Committee or something) with applicant voting rights equal to the head council, but I'm not really in support of giving everyone a vote, even if the head council got veto powers or something dumb like that.
If you read my posts, you would understand my position.

I'll attempt to summarize.


I was initially under the impression that we would get to see the apps (probably because of the post in the application thread). I found out that we wouldn't get to see the apps. Ok, fine. So in the FEEDBACK thread, I asked why we didn't get to even see the apps (as I said, I don't care about the voting, I just wanted to see the apps for interest's sake). I was told that we didn't get to see the apps because of "privacy", which did not make any sense, given that the apps consist only of information about one's habits playing a video game. Furthermore, there is no way that anyone applied thinking that his app would be private, due to the post in the original thread which specifically said to "show off" to the other backroom members.

So I concluded that "privacy" was not really the reason. Even if you claim that the original post was a mistake, I still don't see what privacy has to do with applying to the backroom given that the application consists of one's opinions about a video game (opinions that you are expected to share as soon as you are in the back room anyway).

So I am now asking what the reason was, not because this is a huge issue in itself, but because I think it's important to know what the leaders are doing. Note my original feedback in this thread about "leader secrecy".

If that's the case, then it sounds like you're lowering yourself to his level.

Be a freethinker, stay objective and non-judgmental.
How am I on the "lower level" here?


Plus y'all are taking the phrase "troll logic" way too seriously. It doesn't mean "OMG I HATE YOU GUYS FOR ALL TIME!!!!!!!" I'm just saying that something doesn't make sense.
 

Mahie

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
1,067
Location
Lille, France
#64
I completely agree with what Ballin said.
When I wrote my own application, I really assumed everyone would read it, as stated in the thread, and I fail to see how it can be a huge issue to anyone.
That being said, it's too late now anyway. For the next round of admission I guess simply asking people whether they want "privacy" or not is the best way to go, although I believe it should be viewable by everyone in the BR.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
2,366
Location
Northern VA, USA
#65
How am I on the "lower level" here?
Focus more on the "if that's the case" part. I haven't actually been reading most of this thread, and I don't really know what you said. I was responding directly to the structure of asianaussie's logic, not the premises on which it was based.

I think we have a great composition of members in the BR, I <3 you all.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
#66
Focus more on the "if that's the case" part. I haven't actually been reading most of this thread, and I don't really know what you said. I was responding directly to the structure of asianaussie's logic, not the premises on which it was based.

I think we have a great composition of members in the BR, I <3 you all.
Ha, I was going to ask if you had read the thread, but I deleted that part because it sounded too inflammatory.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#68
I have a feeling ballin isn't going to accept any reason other than something like 'we want to oppress the backroom members as much as we possibly can because we're dictator pigs' >_>

It was a clerical thing, I was told off for putting that in without consensus and the actions associated with it became a no-go, then I forgot to edit it.

Think what you want, I already took responsibility. We weren't trying to shut you out or establish some twisted hierarchy, it was merely overeagerness on my part followed by a bout of bad memory.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#70
Nothing. I'm fairly sure that Boom agreed with me in writing that, and Surri just misunderstood what I was trying to do - something about votes got lost in translation.

You'll get to see the apps next round once the applicants consent (which I'm sure they will).
 

firo

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
600
Location
Champaign, Illinois
#73
I'm still confused about the yearly schedule in the doctrine. Does it apply? We have just a couple weeks to deliver a tier list. Shouldn't matchups be done by then?
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#74
It's the one thing I didn't modify (in addition to the represented regions), because the BR Tourney stuff is still being discussed. It will be revised and start applying once we've got everything up and running.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
9,681
#75
Do we really need a new tier list? The current one seems mostly fine to me. From what I understand, you copied a large portion of the doctrine from the Brawl BR. However, Brawl is a newer game going through more development, so more frequent tier lists makes sense. The doctrine says a new tier list will be delivered every year, but I don't foresee the metagame changing enough to warrant this. I think we should create new tier lists based on whether we think the metagame has evolved enough to justify doing so, not on intervals of time.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#76
Yeah, we can literally just re-release the old tier list, drawing on teh icy's stuff.

The things we want to decide are:

Kirby > Fox?
Fox in SS or S?
Link/Luigi positioning?
Ness/Jiggs positioning?

PAL and (J) stuff might be incorporated. If anyone wants to lead the discussion (there probably won't be much), you can make a thread.
 

King Funk

Int. Croc. Alligator
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,972
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
#78
SS -> Pikachu

S -> Kirby ; Fox

A -> Mario ; Falcon

B -> Yoshi ; Puff ; Donkey Kong

C -> Ness ; Luigi ; Samus ; Link

The new stage striking system is great for Pikachu as he is good on all three of the stages and can now strike Hyrule against Fox or Dreamland against Falcon. Kirby is also better than Fox with it.

Mario should always have been above Falcon in my opinion.

Link drops to last place because the fact he can't have Hyrule on his first round is quite problematic.

This is just a rough draft of my own list.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,343
Location
Sayonara Memories
#79
This would be the first time anyone's ever incorporated stage strikes into a tier list. I'm not opposed to the idea, but if that's the case, why not just give slightly modified tier lists for Hyrule and Dreamland/etc? I might be old-fashioned and proddy, but I prefer to keep the idea of potential floating around, rather than 'Link is bad because he never gets Hyrule' - if he loses he gets to pick Hyrule, and I firmly believe Link is better than Luigi and Samus (and perhaps even Puff/Ness) on Hyrule.

Funk saying Mario > Falcon? What is this? It's not like Falcon is bad on any particular stage, is it?

Do keep in mind we aren't crafting a list from tournament results, and are still theorycrafting. I don't really want theorycrafting to extend into stage picks. Separate tier lists for Hyrule and Dreamland-type stages would be better imo.
 

King Funk

Int. Croc. Alligator
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,972
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
#80
This would be the first time anyone's ever incorporated stage strikes into a tier list. I'm not opposed to the idea, but if that's the case, why not just give slightly modified tier lists for Hyrule and Dreamland/etc? I might be old-fashioned and proddy, but I prefer to keep the idea of potential floating around, rather than 'Link is bad because he never gets Hyrule' - if he loses he gets to pick Hyrule, and I firmly believe Link is better than Luigi and Samus (and perhaps even Puff/Ness) on Hyrule.

Funk saying Mario > Falcon? What is this? It's not like Falcon is bad on any particular stage, is it?

Do keep in mind we aren't crafting a list from tournament results, and are still theorycrafting. I don't really want theorycrafting to extend into stage picks. Separate tier lists for Hyrule and Dreamland-type stages would be better imo.
In the previous rules made by Malva, it was stated that each set would start on Hyrule.

Now that we have stage striking, it makes things a whole lot different. I made the list taking that new perspective into account.

Mario and Falcon have nothing to do with that, but I always thought Mario was a more solid character than Falcon.
 
Top