RCT Discussion / Lets get something straight

Came here to say what ][22 did.

Go statistics

 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. 

 

I can understand the concern, but do you think guys like Me, Coca, Alex, Nin, Lagom, etc.. would be super harsh?  I definitely wouldn't think they would.

 

When it comes to "elitism", I think there needs to be a balance.  If the panel is a bunch of un-established builders then there wont be a much respect for their opinion, but if its just an elitist group then the majority of the members feel isolated.

 

I would say though that if a member produces work of 80% plus then they have to have at least a small idea on what good parkmaking is.

I don't think one should compare the community vote and the accolade vote. I personally often find myself voting higher than I probably would if I was on the panel, and sometimes I vote high on purpose so that the submission gets the panelist vote.

I completely disagree with you there, G Force, and ][ntamin22 and csw are right. I'd like to add this simple saying that is very true and relevant: you don't have to be a great artist to appreciate great art.

The reason why we went from 15 to 10 votes, by the way, is because LL parks were struggling to get 15 panelist votes. It's not possible to set the number to 15 for RCT2 and 10 for LL; if we could, we would.

I actually agree with G Force in regards to the percentage differences, especially because sometimes it feels to me that some of the panel votes come out of spite. There've been a few cases now where I've thought "oh these people who voted the lowest must've really wanted to get their votes in before the voting is closed to bring down the percentage." Sorry for posting assumptions like that but I find that very likely for a few votes every now and then. Therefore getting in more panel votes, or cancelling out the lowest and the highest vote like it used to be (is this not the case anymore?) could be a great option.

 

I can see though that this might be a problem with parks that less people view.

Pretty sure highest and lowest votes are still cancelled out.

Saying parks by less-advertising members or LL-builders get over 15 votes doesn't say all that much. I often give those parks a vote based on the overview to kick them into voting faster. It could be weeks before I open up an LL release to vote on it later. Still haven't even gotten around to installing RCT2 since February/March.

...We plan on monitoring panelist activity (account activity, not voting activity) more closely now. If someone drops out, we will know where to find you.  
...

 

 

Is that still a thing? Not that I want in, dont have time for that, just interested if the monitoring is actually happening/has happened since the new panelist was appointed. Also interested if account activity may be the wrong thing to monitor.

Perhaps an increase to 12 or 13 then, surely more votes won't hurt. If we accompany this by adding 5-8 new panelist an dropping inactive ones I'm sure it won't be to terrible.

Perhaps with a premium on LL panelist as well. **cough cough**

I think someone just wants to be on the panel

I honestly could care less about that.  To me improving the panel and the accolade process is more important than being able to vote on parks. 

 

I have some other ideas to improve the scoring process as well, for both design and spotlights.  They might be added here or brought up with the admins.  However, I don't know if anyone cares enough to improve it, or has the ability to re-code the site if we agree to modify the process.

With the amount of bullshit the panel has been getting for how they've scored things lately, it almost makes me wonder if dictatorship of iris back in the early 2000s was truly the way to go. Sure, people still voiced their opinions for how they didn't think something deserved Spotlight or not, but at the time it felt like no one really questioned it. It just is what it is. Which I guess is the case now with the panel, too. So what the fuck am I talking about.

In terms of being completely diplomatic though, the panel is really the best way to go about voting on submissions. It kind of seems like you don't have a problem with how we vote, but rather who's doing the voting.

I think there will be always discussion about the panellists and their votes. Won't change if you expand it or change way of voting. It's like a football match, the supporters of the other team will have seen another game.

@Steve

I do have a small problem with the way people vote, but that's an argument I'll never win.  Most of my motivation for bringing this up was the amount on controversy on some of the recent Gold/Spotlight and Design accolade decisions.  If there is enough of a disagreement on the panelist score then they aren't doing a good job of accurately portraying the community's opinion.  Especially when it seems they are of the minority on their decisions.

They're portraying the community's opinion? I thought that was what the "community score" was for. I think Intamin best described the situation: similar to Rotten Tomatoes, there is the critic's score and the audience's score.

Let's just eliminate accolades entirely. Pointless things, really.

Is it really an issue if there's 'controversy' on how things are scored? The way I see it is that the 'controversy' fuels discussion and really makes people dissect a park much more than if everyone just agreed with a score. Surely that's much more important than fake internet points?

Sorry guys just trying to help and give us something to talk about.

I think 12 voters makes a lot of sense considering the highest and lowest get dropped. I prefer 12-2 to 10-2.

^ Agreed. The best idea raised thus far, gives a slightly more balanced vote. Shouldn't overly impact LL votes either, maybe add a few more to the panel if necessary.