RCT Discussion / Lets get something straight

10 Panelist isn't enough to score a park.

 

Why?

 

BGA:  98% Panelist Score

92% Community Score w/48 votes

Panelist +6%

 

Luna:  89% Panelist Score

93% Community Score w/25 votes

Panelist -4%

 

Westwinds:  83% Panelist Score

88% Community Score w/38 votes

Panelist -5%

 

We need more than 10 panelist votes.  For those who claim there isn't enough activity or active members to support 5 more votes.  There are over 15 community votes on all the recent accolade winning LL parks.  Also, there were members who applied to the panel last year for LL and weren't selected, so there are still members available to score LL parks not on the panel.

 

Nothing against any of the builders or votes mentioned.

 

Thanks, have a nice day.

What are you trying to illustrate with the percentages?

Well, I'd prefer not to have to suck more than ten dicks to get votes; my jaw hurts by the eleventh.

What are you trying to illustrate with the percentages?

 

 

The Panel is supposed to be a representation of the community opinion on a park.  When there is as large of a differential as there has been on some parks, especially comparing BGA to Luna or WW etc... there is something wrong.  

 

Basically, the community score is a better representation of the park the panels score, especially considering the supposed "subjective" nature of the panel.

I'm gonna go start my own RCT site, with blackjack and hookers!

You would assume that each panel member who votes has looked at the park/design thoroughly and made a careful decision. Community votes could be by people basing it solely on the aerial screenshot, or by those who are relatively new to NE and are unfamiliar with the general standard here.

While I agree, that fifteen votes by the Panel would represent the communitys opinion on a park more, I do also think that it would kill anybody who is not a top level player.

 

People like you, alex, robb (just to name a few) wont have any problems getting the fifteen votes. But everyone else will be waiting month on a score, If they ever get it. Just look at how long it took firestorm to get a score. And that park was publicly announced at the awards.

You would assume that each panel member who votes has looked at the park/design thoroughly and made a careful decision. Community votes could be by people basing it solely on the aerial screenshot, or by those who are relatively new to NE and are unfamiliar with the general standard here.

 

 

Its not safe to assume that.  I would not hesitate to say that some panelist don't look at a park for more than 60 seconds before voting.

 

Also, I don't know why members would be against adding more panelist.  Adding more opinions to the pot would certainly equalize the scores at least slightly. 

While I agree, that fifteen votes by the Panel would represent the communitys opinion on a park more, I do also think that it would kill anybody who is not a top level player.

 

People like you, alex, robb (just to name a few) wont have any problems getting the fifteen votes. But everyone else will be waiting month on a score, If they ever get it. Just look at how long it took firestorm to get a score. And that park was publicly announced at the awards.

 

I think that's more an issue (or at least partially due to) with the panelist than the number of voters.  Wouldn't you agree?

yes, I do agree. But if you cant get ten people to vote on something in two and a half weeks, how long will it take to get 15 people to vote?

I'm gonna go start my own RCT site, with blackjack and hookers!

 

 

I thought kumba was a poker player and that's not a very nice thing to say about his iguana

[ntamin22' timestamp='1462837503' post='697552']

 

 

 

I thought kumba was a poker player and that's not a very nice thing to say about his iguana

 

 

No no no, Kumba is the hooker.

yes, I do agree. But if you cant get ten people to vote on something in two and a half weeks, how long will it take to get 15 people to vote?

 

You don't think there are 15 members in the community who could vote on a park within 2 weeks of its release?

 

Considering we have 20* panelist and require 10 votes, which requires 50% participation.  Say we have 35 panelist and 15 votes, wouldn't that not only provide more consistent scoring speed but also score better representing of the parks standing among the community?

I think the premise here is flawed.  The panel isn't supposed to be a public opinion poll; those are two different measures, like the "Critics" and "Audiences" tomato meters.  

You can argue the panel is delusional or full of elitist snobs or too fixated on highly-advertised high-profile community members and should vote more in line with where public opinion falls, but-
A- for multiple reasons, changing panel numbers isn't guaranteed to fix that and
B- for the remarkably low sample sizes we're talking here 5% deviation is very low.  Even if you normalized with the fact that nobody ever gets <50% votes we're fine.  

 

I'd only worry in cases where public vote and panel vote differ by 12-15% or more and then only when there's a decent number of public votes, nobody was gaming 0 or 100 votes, etc.

More panelists sure. But I think the number of votes required is fine. BGA was just an outlier unless you have more examples.

I think the premise here is flawed.  The panel isn't supposed to be a public opinion poll; those are two different measures, like the "Critics" and "Audiences" tomato meters.  

You can argue the panel is delusional or full of elitist snobs or too fixated on highly-advertised high-profile community members and should vote more in line with where public opinion falls, but-
A- for multiple reasons, changing panel numbers isn't guaranteed to fix that and
B- for the remarkably low sample sizes we're talking here 5% deviation is very low.  Even if you normalized with the fact that nobody ever gets <50% votes we're fine.  

 

I'd only worry in cases where public vote and panel vote differ by 12-15% or more and then only when there's a decent number of public votes, nobody was gaming 0 or 100 votes, etc.

 

Magnum had a 10% differential:

63% Panel Score

73% Community Score 

 

I hate to use my own work as an example though.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, however I'd suggest that the difference between the average voter on RT and the average critic on RT is far larger than the difference between someone who votes in the community poll and some panelists.

 

While there are respected members on the panel, some of them certainly are not known for having extraordinary RCT knowledge.  No offense to the panelist, but its hardly and eliteist group anymore, maybe 5 years ago, but today, not at all.

 

I suggest this in the past, but IMO all Parkmakers, Elite Parkmakers etc... should be given panelist status, this would increase the number of panelist and add to the prestige which IMO it certainly lacks.

i think the panel is fine and doesn't need to be fixed

^ Most positive thing Coups has ever said!... and I basically agree... or I stopped caring that much... I'm sure the panelists are fine-ish... it'll change again one day I'm sure (I thought the admins said they'd switch up the panelists more often with the new arrangement)

While there are respected members on the panel, some of them certainly are not known for having extraordinary RCT knowledge.  No offense to the panelist, but its hardly and eliteist group anymore, maybe 5 years ago, but today, not at all.

 

I suggest this in the past, but IMO all Parkmakers, Elite Parkmakers etc... should be given panelist status, this would increase the number of panelist and add to the prestige which IMO it certainly lacks.

 Who says the panel needs to be "elitist"? It definitely won't be a fair jury if all of the panelists are parkmakers and they hold up the submission to their own >80% work. The point of the panel is to take a sample of the community and use it to assign a score to a submission fairly. The point is not to be prestigious; it is to assess the creator's RCT skill. 

 

Also, parkmaker =/= good judge of quality. And vice versa: not all good judges of quality are necessarily parkmaker-level builders, myself included. And I guess I'd also like to hear which members of the panel you think are "not known for having extraordinary RCT knowledge". 

 

Plus I agree with everything ][22 said. 

If you gave me five examples of this then I MIGHT be on board but like Liam said 5 is a very small difference so saying that around 10%is outlandish isn't really justified in my opinion.