runouw.com

I did actually get around to calculating who'd actually win the LDCs if the highest and lowest scores were removed. Buff would win the 6th LDC with 16.65 points, Volkove would tie Blablob in the 7th LDC, 11th LDC would be won by Avolerators with 16 to Kill's 15.625, I believe Star/Awesome would have beaten both Volkove and Doram with 16.75 to their 16.5s, Volkove would tie MoD/Ven in the 16th LDC with 17.125, SuperMIC/Buffooner would tie the 20th LDC with 17.625, and Volkove would have won the 22nd LDC with 16.6275.

That's 4 LDCs with changed winners, and 3 tied LDCs. That shows right there that the new ruling punishes winning levels for having the highest score, and rewards runners-up that didn't win for having lower scores. And that's not even getting into the multiple placements down in 2nd-6th that would also punish good levels and reward the levels just below them.

The system is flawed and will punish good designers just to make other people feel better. And if this is a serious thing, a way of life, true art and a craft like Shroom says it is, then tampering with the scores to rig it in favor of the non-winners is undermining that all.

Got ninja'd by Doram and Moy. I read your rebuttal though Doram. It pretty much summed up most of the thread. (Also it seems I have one additional person stressing this with me; Our system is not broken at all.)

Supershroom wrote:6th, no longer placing: Harmless (15.75/--/13.75/--) = 14.75

You really didn't need to point that out, even I could see it that with your new system, I wouldn't have placed.

Supershroom wrote: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.

Oh, I understood that part completely fine. And I didn't really approve.

Harmless wrote:If you're so worried about 'stupid distortions' appearing in the oh so beautiful averages, then let's think about hypothetical examples for a second. MP3 Amplifier, in the 64th LDC, has given mostly positive scores ranging from 12-18. Grumpy ♥♥♥ Supershroom gave scores ranging from 6-12. Now tell me, if we were to combine the two together into an average, they would probably range from something like 9-15. Again, this is just a hypothetical example.

But what if we had Grumpy ♥♥♥ Supershroom AND Grumpy ♥♥♥ Supershroom? Then we would have two judgings with 6-12 in overall scores. The result would be 6-12, but NOBODY WOULD PLACE DIFFERENTLY. Likewise, if we had two happy go lucky MP3 Amplifiers, the average would remain a constant 6 points in difference from last to first.

Ergo, your system is not finding the true average at all. It is straying away from it by cancelling out the judgings that MAKE the difference between first and last!

This still stands, regardless if it's for every single individual. The scores would be far more reliable if we took into consideration ALL criticism, not simply just the ones that make you win and get a higher score. That's not a true average, that's a rigged system.

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.

And that reason is? Because YOU thought my level was worse than Triple J's? Because YOU think you're the ultimate benefactor for deciding who places in the LDC? C'mon, I'm waiting for a valid response here... which you have failed to provide us this entire thread.

Supershroom wrote: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.

You misspelled interval three times now.

'When the interval is distorted, changes get larged'. Are you saying when we have more extremes in the difference between first and last the judgings are rigged or something? Maybe you oughta look a few posts back. And please note the enlarged part.

Harmless wrote:Well ♥♥♥♥ son, if you think you can take out an entire review and prevent it from being a valid opinion just because they thought poorly or highly of your level, I suggest you consider again. There's an awfully good REASON as to why they probably rated it 9/20 or 17/20. Sure, I hate it when you have that one judging that drags your chances of winning, but let's be honest - their judgings speak for themselves. Maybe if you actually READ my judgings you'd understand why I gave you the score I gave you. And don't give me the bullcrap that 'it's too long and boring' either.

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.

A level can't be good and bad at once? You mean you've never heard about levels with something called 'controversial' elements? Wow. You claim to have done all this research on past LDC's yet you fail to notice Darkwater Haven in the 2nd 25quared Mini LDC, which was noted as one of the more controversial levels in the contest. Some people loved it, some people thought it was awfully boring. Now explain to me that '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.' Have you lost your mind? Maybe you should consider that ALL the judges might be correct. MoY even admitted when reviewing your level he was feeling generous at the time giving the fun score he gave you. Don't go saying that your level deserved a 6/10 in the fun category even though it blew my ♥♥♥♥ capillaries ten times over. I'm not exaggerating either.

Supershroom wrote: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.

Wow. You've pissed me off twice in one sentence. GOOD ♥♥♥♥ JOB.

1. If you're seriously implying that it would've been better if my judgings for the 27th LDC didn't even get ♥♥♥♥ accounted for, learn to understand that you're not going to win your first LDC first. Especially with an entrant that I had every right to give the score I gave you. If you still think that a 5.75 is 'brassiness' or 'is a sign of poor judging' or 'shouldn't be accounted for so I CAN ♥♥♥♥ WIN AND STROKE MY BIG ♥♥♥ EGO', then get out. You want to know the difference between you and Star King, one of the more 'proud' people on here? You actually light the ♥♥♥♥ fuse and blow people off, you don't dance around it with no real danger.

And no, I'm not going to feel any better knowing that all the hard work I put into my criticism is suddenly not needed and flushed down the toilet.

2. If you're also seriously implying that you are a better judge than everyone on the goddamn site, then you've got a long way to prove that. Until you've participated in more than just one LDC there's hardly a way to make the argument that you know what you're doing with this 'new method of judging' and 'how a judge should judge'. Please, get some actual experience judging so you know what you're talking about instead of coming in with your first LDC under your belt screaming; "HEY HARMLESS YOUR JUDGINGS ARE TERRIBLE BTW YOU SHOULD'VE GIVEN ME A 16/20 BECAUSE MY LEVEL DESERVED THAT".

EARN YOUR GODDAMN RESPECT FIRST BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO SHOVE YOUR 'IDEALS' DOWN OUR THROATS.

Also just to set the record straight about the 27th LDC

1st) Yurimaster (16.5/16.25/16/17) = 16.375
2nd) MessengerOfDreams (16/15.5/16/16.25*) = 16
3rd) ~MP3 Amplifier~ (16*/15/17.25/15.5) = 15.75
4th) KABOOM (15.25/14.25/15.75/15.75) = 15.5
5th) Triple J (15.5/8.75/14.5/17) = 15
6th) Harmless (15.75/11.5*/13.75/16.75) = 14.75
7th) Nwolf (13.75/12.75/14.75/12) = 13.25
8th) 1018peter (15/10.75/9.75/16.25) = 12.875
9th) Supershroom (14/5.25/8.5*/13.25) = 10.875
10th) Thefiredragon (7.75/x/4/7.75) = 6.5 (No change, only 3 scores and top 2 are identical)

So, Shroom barely changes, doesn't change placements. Amp gets knocked down for no reason, I get a boost for no reason, score boosts happen for no reason, Harmless is punished for no reason, and otherwise barely anything changes.

So I notice that you might have figured this out and I can tell because now you're demanding the judges give you mandatory points for things they don't really care about. So really, it's undeniable that you just want a system rigged in your favor. If the score adjustments don't spoil you, then you'll say the judges must judge things special for me.

You cannot control people like that. They're judges, not slaves.

Gonna lock this now. I'm tired of getting bullied. As soon as I feel we can continue the "discussion" without getting hurtful, I'm gonna PM a mod. But for now, it's over.

Okay.

---

But first, let me make a point.

Have any of these actually been attacks against you? Or are they just rebuttals to what you and only you think is a good idea? I for one think it's the latter. If we were trying to bully you, all we would say is:

this is a terrible idea

with little to no points to back our claims up, or

♥♥♥♥ shut up

with absolutely no thought put into it.

This is going to be off-topic, but Jesus Christ, the word "bully" has been completely butchered in the past decade. In a debate, the team with more support will obviously win. Is the winning team bullying the losing team? No, they won fair and square. They don't run over to the other side, punch them, or call them "losers", they just win and they go home with a trophy or medals.

This might be touchy, but are two armies fighting against each other bullying the other? Is the winning army a giant bully? For this purpose, let's focus on the whole group instead of down to the individual level. Once we do that, the most common answer is no, the winning team is just playing their cards right for what they believe is right.

Now let's look at this topic. Have any of us called each other a name at all? No. All we did was argue for what we though was best.

I'm not sure how old you are, and I usually couldn't care less about age, but you seem like a pretty intelligent person, and I really don't want to replace the image of you I already have (Smart, active) with a negative one (Stubborn with tunnel-vision).

---

Now, let me twist the above post around a bit.

As soon as you feel you can actually "discuss" with us without getting defensive, please PM me. But for now, it's over.