|
Post by almightyarceus on Dec 28, 2010 21:35:17 GMT -5
Im with pokemoneistein I that. In fact, that's what I thought was going to happen. If we do it this way then there will be no exclusiveness to the people who are being reviewed again as it should be. I think the reevaluations should be renominations; you have to put in the vote and they have to wait like everyone else, versus a big mass of reevals that don't pertain to the actual person being rated that week. Reviewed if each coming soon, but just letting you know, they're both high ratings
|
|
|
Post by JillSandwich93 on Dec 28, 2010 23:40:35 GMT -5
Honestly, I think it'd be unfair to have people who have already been rated to be reentered into the nomination pool. That's not really fair for those who haven't went or been nominated to be bumped out because someone who already went was renominated so many times. Plus, you don't have to rerate people, unless you believe what you originally said doesn't apply anymore.
However, if people complain about how revoting works, I think that we should separate nominations and make two separate voting pools - one for people who haven't gone yet, and one for rerates.
Say, after 10 weeks, everyone who has gone in RtC before can be voted in a "renomination pool", and every week the winner of both pools are in Rate the Composer together. Then, those two can't be nominated for rerates for a few weeks, maybe until another 10 week cycle rolls over?
If not that, then there should be a voting cap on renominations, so those who haven't gone yet have an advantage.
Anyway, I'll *try* to review all 9 people I've missed later, though that's not saying much. xP
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Dec 29, 2010 0:20:39 GMT -5
Honestly, I think it'd be unfair to have people who have already been rated to be reentered into the nomination pool. That's not really fair for those who haven't went or been nominated to be bumped out because someone who already went was renominated so many times. Plus, you don't have to rerate people, unless you believe what you originally said doesn't apply anymore. However, if people complain about how revoting works, I think that we should separate nominations and make two separate voting pools - one for people who haven't gone yet, and one for rerates. Say, after 10 weeks, everyone who has gone in RtC before can be voted in a "renomination pool", and every week the winner of both pools are in Rate the Composer together. Then, those two can't be nominated for rerates for a few weeks, maybe until another 10 week cycle rolls over? If not that, then there should be a voting cap on renominations, so those who haven't gone yet have an advantage. Anyway, I'll *try* to review all 9 people I've missed later, though that's not saying much. xP if they're reentered into the nom pool, it is fair because the people who haven't gone yet have the most votes and will have the most votes for a while. In this way we can let it be the peoples' choice. The people choose who they want to choose; and everyone will get a chance eventually. But your idea of a renom pool is good too. We could do dual reviews per week, just like this week. We'll have the people who haven't been reviewed before be reviewed, and the peoplewho are being renomed get an option: you can rerate the person, or rate if you hadn't before; or you can say 'my previous rating stands' idk either is fine with me I guess. The system we have now seems a little disorganized and a bit too much to fit in.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Dec 29, 2010 0:35:07 GMT -5
Doing it that way would be more to fit in than what I have right now. Also, what is so "disorganized" about this "system" I have right now? You rate, give a review, give you nominations as to who you think should go next and move on. If you ask me, that's pretty organized. Like I said, though, usually I'd think about it, but the way I have it right now seems fine to me. There's no reason to change something that is already good as it stands. That is, if you are talking about RtC itself. If you are just talking about Re-Ratings, I don't really see what is wrong with that either.
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Dec 29, 2010 3:45:43 GMT -5
I just think it's overwhelming the people who have specifically been selected for this week. Though I do have a point of inquiry that is important and that is vague to me atm: is the re rating specifically for this week and then we wait another 10 rounds until the next? If it's. Just this one week for re ratings, then the system is fine. I just thought that if it waz a continuous thing from this point then it would overwhelm the actual people selected.
|
|
|
Post by pokemoneinstein on Dec 29, 2010 9:29:46 GMT -5
Howabout every 10th round is for rerates, and rounds x1-x9 are for new people? No noms for rerates, but that way neither overpowers the other and they each have their own due time, with emphasis given on first-time ratings
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Dec 29, 2010 11:56:00 GMT -5
"Their Own Due Time" lolwut Honestly guys, I see no problem with the current set-up. Really. And this topic has gone WAY off of it's original course. We're supposed to be reviewing and rating users. Not discussing how you guys are going to change something. If you want to do that, go the the "Rate the Composer Info." thread on the Challenges board. lol That's where I'll be moving these.
|
|
|
Post by pokemoneinstein on Dec 29, 2010 14:34:46 GMT -5
Haha, that wording is weird, yeah XD
I meant like, each will get their own time to take place, neither... "invades" the other's time, you know? Like the rerates seem to be taking over the ratings for REGI and SW, you know? But if every 10th round was just rerates, no ratings for anyone else, the reratings wouldn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Dec 29, 2010 15:22:46 GMT -5
Haha, that wording is weird, yeah XD I meant like, each will get their own time to take place, neither... "invades" the other's time, you know? Like the rerates seem to be taking over the ratings for REGI and SW, you know? But if every 10th round was just rerates, no ratings for anyone else, the reratings wouldn't do that. That's what I meant. As in, each 10th round is reserved for rerates, and then afterwards we wait another 10 rounds until we do it again. That way we don't overshadow the ones being reviewed that week.
|
|