runouw.com

Whoa, is it possible that this has been totally misunderstood all the time? This is how it goes:

and for every contestant/duelant, his highest and his lowest rating are excluded for his overall score, while the others still have the same weight each.

which means: for every single contestant, sorry. On Yuri's level the sorted scores are: 16, 16.25, 16.5, 17. So the 16 goes out, as it's his lowest score, and the 17 goes out as it's his highest score. This means in this case, everyone would have two scores being valid, and the table would look like this:


Like I've said several times, these numbers only have few significance as the additional judges are missing. Yeah, you can see that not much is changing, but Triple J and Harmless switching positions happens for a reason. In most cases, all scores are within a short intervall, and in this case there is quite no changing, which is good. But when the intervall is distorted, changes get larger, and it helps to make the table and the scores look more smoothly. I'm tempted to say it this time: A level can't be good and bad at once - if there's a huge gap, it's one or even more judges to have blundered, and either the other judges are right, or the truth lies in between. And there is a kind of approximate truth. Making mistakes at judging is gonna happen to everyone at a time, no one needs to be ashamed of it, and once a judge finds out to have a dubious score, he's probably even assuaged if it doesn't get counted.

Supershroom wrote: A level can't be good and bad at once - if there's a huge gap, it's one or even more judges to have blundered, and either the other judges are right, or the truth lies in between. And there is a kind of approximate truth.

While I agree with you there, it's all about opinions. While you may like a level, others may find it horrible. There's not really a true statement here, one judge could have seen flaws the other haven't. That's why there's the score system, because it will find the middle point between contrasting judgings.

Supershroom wrote:everyone would have two scores being valid

Sure, let's average just two ratings!

Supershroom wrote:Nan, I wasn't complaining about not getting bonus points for the reference, but I was surprised of comments like these:

Nwolf wrote:then there was that freefall part of which I couldn't figure out the purpose.

If a reference fits well into the level, it should be rewarded with bonus points. If it doesn't and it damages the level, it should get a minus. Same with alternate music.

oh that's cool so

it hurt the level in my eyes!

congratulations you prooved my point


Now can we close this topic it doesn't seem to go anywhere anymore except that people hate themselves even more than before

My last note on-topic (I frickin' hope) is it's not a matter of references should be rewarded, it's more than references could be rewarded. People like me for example don't have much experience with other games, making a reference (unless it's really really a notable reference) would have no effect on me whatsoever, I probably wouldn't even realise there's a reference there unless you told me.

On a...slightly lighter more off-topic note...

I have GOT to change my name to ~MIDI Minimizer~, I ♥♥♥♥ love it. <3

~MP3 Amplifier~ wrote:I have GOT to change my name to ~MIDI Minimizer~, I ♥♥♥♥ love it. <3

Wear that name on Halloween. :3

You've accused people of bias for daring to give your flawed levels a low score. You've accused us of lying about how we feel. You act like we're persecuting you for not wanting this. You're not only telling us how we must judge but what we must be force to give YOU points for. You don't even listen to other peoples opinions, you just try and silence them. And yet we're all misunderstanding and denigrating you?

Please put this topic to rest and stop shoving your rules down to our throat.

Nou amp. How should I recognize you properly then? D :
As for the topic I'm done and ask for not getting mentioned in any further examples or statements. Like seriously. I'm not feeling like getting too involved.

I'll just do it for halloween then.

While it's been heated in this topic (so much that I've had to remove my metaphorical jacket), it's still up to Shroom whether or not we should just close the case as he made the topic and if he wants me to, I can lock it. If it's aggravating everyone though I may decide to lock it anyway. Maybe it would be a good idea to draw some final conclusions about the idea anyway so we can just let this topic die peacefully.

A) I'm not sure everyone in the last two pages read my rebuttal.

B)

Supershroom wrote:Like I've said several times, these numbers only have few significance as the additional judges are missing. Yeah, you can see that not much is changing, but Triple J and Harmless switching positions happens for a reason. In most cases, all scores are within a short intervall, and in this case there is quite no changing, which is good. But when the intervall is distorted, changes get larger, and it helps to make the table and the scores look more smoothly. I'm tempted to say it this time: A level can't be good and bad at once - if there's a huge gap, it's one or even more judges to have blundered, and either the other judges are right, or the truth lies in between. And there is a kind of approximate truth.

Right there, you say there is not a lot of change, you agree that this fact is good, and this leads me to believe YOU are missing OUR point that this means our system is not broken at all. Also, you admit to an approximate kind of truth which is exactly what the averaging is supposed to show. Yes, clearly some numbers will change. Change ANY part of ANY equation, and the numbers will change. But the fact that the only changes were neighbors switching proves that our system is still getting reasonably close to showing what is going on, and the only difference is if we start adding or subtracting numbers to the equation to fiddle with it. This is NOT an exact science, nor will it ever be, and the best we will ever achieve is an approximation of universal truth, and I see no evidence that your equation is any closer to that than ours.

Yes. We can experiment with other systems, as some of us already are, and we can try to see if there is anything left to refine, but if the ultimate goal - the ultimate truth - is something as nebulous as "Is this level good, or better than other levels?", then there is a limit - a limit I believe that we have already hit - to how accurate, fair, or otherwise close to the "truth" ANY process can be.

Furthermore, as I have said before, making the process more complicated makes it take longer and provide more chances for people to make mistakes. KISS