maomania wrote:This rule does not apply to those voters obviously. Only Semi Finalists who fail to vote in the Finals are not eligible to enter the next edition. Finalists who fail to vote in the Finals will go back to the Semis, regardless of their score & ranking.

Has this been the case for a while? I wasn't aware of it if so, and it seems kinda illogical to me, as people should be punished equally regardless of whether or not their entry happened to reach the finals (or start there), but ok then.

OK I probably understood part where you say something like ''they will loose right for Qualification from the Semis for upcoming edition'' wrong.

TF100 wrote:

maomania wrote:This rule does not apply to those voters obviously. Only Semi Finalists who fail to vote in the Finals are not eligible to enter the next edition. Finalists who fail to vote in the Finals will go back to the Semis, regardless of their score & ranking.

Has this been the case for a while? I wasn't aware of it if so, and it seems kinda illogical to me, as people should be punished equally regardless of whether or not their entry happened to reach the finals (or start there), but ok then.

Yes, the rules actually have been in place for a while.

If a Semi Finalist fails to vote in the Semis: They lose the right for qualification but still can participate the next edition
If a Semi Finalist fails to vote in the Finals: They will have to sit out the next edition
If a Finalist fails to vote in the Semis: They will be disqualified from the Finals but are eligible to enter the next edition
If a Finalist fails to vote in the Finals: They lose the right for pre-qualification for the next edition but can participate in the next edition.

Hmm well this way if a finalist has all but given up on their entry anyway they might as well just not vote as they can still enter anyway, and the disadvantage of 20% off will more or less be compensated for by having a 58 point advantage over the others as their votes didn't get added on...

TF100 wrote:Hmm well this way if a finalist has all but given up on their entry anyway they might as well just not vote as they can still enter anyway, and the disadvantage of 20% off will more or less be compensated for by having a 58 point advantage over the others as their votes didn't get added on...

I don't see a Finalist giving up on their song if they are already in the Finals . And even if they do, they gave up their right for direct qualification (possibly) for the next edition. If we would ban them from the next edition we would double penalize them.
Now we could adjust the rules to 20% reduction or 58 point reduction, whatever is less.

I would just like to ask how this rule came into action without any apparent sort of previous alert or negotiation with the public?

Fearnavigatr wrote:I would just like to ask how this rule came into action without any apparent sort of previous alert or negotiation with the public?

It's only a slight update, not a major rule change. No affect on the members whatsoever, this is purely for statistical purposes and to have more authentic results. In addition, several hosts failed to substract the points in the past and the actual results without the substraction done were posted on the NSC wikia page.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by negotiation with the public but this is an update to the rules that has no bearing whatsover on how the game is being played, nor does it really affect anyone in a negative way.
Not every little thing needs to be put for vote

While a change that doesn't have any effect on the real-time played game, and a change that I actually support, I must say that I'm disappointed with seeing a rule, even on a level like this, just being inserted without being put to any kind of open discussion first.

Don't be disappointed .
As it was mentioned before in the past, we are running into a lot of heated discussions and arguments everytime we put out a possible rule change. And while, different opinions are welcome and encouraged, non-game affecting rules don't always have to be discussed and voted on, unless it does affect players in a possible negative way.
Believe me, we're trying to have the members involved for any major changes or anything that might have a wider affect on them as much as possible. A great example is the ownership rule that was recently brought back and discussed. This will always be up to the countries to decide.

Hmmm, I agree that maybe it would've been better if we could've discussed this altogether as a whole beforehand...
I would definitely say that this is an issue that affects the whole community
Perhaps you can reconsider how to deal with this matter, because if there are enough of us who do feel this affects more than 'just the statistics' (and I'm certain there are), then surely it will be more fair to then put it to a poll...

Anyway, my opinions on the actual proposal:
I don't think it's a bad method... I agree that for statistical reasons it's probably better off if the songs don't get penalised. It looks kinda bad when you have a 'last-placer' that wasn't really last place, just got there through deductions.

However, if countries aren't going to be qualifying, what's the point of having any deductions at all? I think that 20%/40% isn't really so different from 75% in that respect. If we want to keep statistics intact, I think there should be no point deduction at all.

Even if their total score is still high, the player would still be punished through non-qualification either to the final or (in the case of already being in the final) directly qualifying to the next one. They could all be dealt in the same way Noizeland's non-voting was in NSC 20.

If you still feel that's not enough punishment, then maybe they could keep their score intact, but have their ranking for that edition changed to "last place", so that nations who did vote but got a lower score still get the 'moral' higher ranking they deserve. For official statistics though, the scores all remain intact...

This is just my idea for it, but I do think that changing 75% to 20%/40% doesn't make sooo much difference in this matter (though it's a bit more lenient) and I think these numbers make things a bit unnecessarily complicated. Whatever happens, I do think it would be very important if we all get a say on matters like this So I'm hoping you'll be able to reconsider your decision on how to decide this rule, and put it to a poll maybe.

I'm quite surprised that a minor adjustment would become a big concern considering nobody bothered in the past to address the issue that on several occasions the 75% deductions were actually not utilized by certain hosts.
The rules have been "forgotten/ignored" by several hosts and players quite a lot lately (most of them unintentional) so this adjustment was done in favor of the host and to make it less confusing.
As it was discussed in January this year, not every little update can be put up for vote as some changes are made to guarantee a smooth ride for everyone.
Now I agree with wampire (I'm sorry, I'm still used to that name ) that a 20% is not optimal but more lenient than no deduction at all. The initial idea was actually to reomove the deduction completly but going with a lower percentage would be less overwhelming.
Now if there is really interest in possibly completly removing the deduction then we can discuss this here, that is not a problem at all. The main concern here is not to overwhelm people with "drastic" changes. This was really a tiny little adjustment but do you feel that we can totally go away with the deduction or do you feel some points need to be removed? The thing to remember is: Don't penalize the song, penalize the player. In the end we're here for the music

But let me stress this one more time: Not every little adjustment to the rules can always be put up for vote if it doesn't affect the gameplay or players. A lot of things are being handled in the background that requires a lot of attention so I really want you to consider that fact as well. The past few changes that were made did not receive any attention and they had actually a bigger affect on players. So overall, please don't get hung up on the fact that not everything can be voted on. Have faith that no decision is being made without proper consideration and research. And any major change or anything that has an immediate affect on players will be put out on the table first (restrictions may apply of course).

maomania wrote:I'm quite surprised that a minor adjustment would become a big concern

^^

Anyway, since you're asking for opinions now, I have to reply.
If we want to keep the statistics as fair as possible, considering that the song must be in a correct place but the player must be penalized, I suggest a simple 12 point deduction. Why?
(1) It is simple.
(2) By not voting, the player could not give douze points to his/her favorite. We do not know which song this is, so by deducting 12 points, every possible favorite (all other players) more or less received this highest mark.

Now, the statistics (more or less) reflect what we all thought of the entries, the player is penalized by the rules as mao explained above and everybody is happy.

(Or not?)

I would like for everyone (or as many as possible) participants to vote in this Questionaire.

Please click HERE

This link will take you to a poll website where you can vote on a few concerns/ideas regarding NSC. It's only a total of 5 questions so it shouldn't take you longer then 2-3 minutes. We are addressing different issues and concerns and if changes should be made. Obviously this is a majority vote so make sure your voice will be heard.
This is totally anonymous so you can be honest.
I will leave this up for a few days. Please let me know if you have any questions.

The link to the poll is

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/351263

Leave as is
Don't care
No penalty
No
No

One issue with this poll might be that there's no option to leave the 75% reduction intact, which there exists people who actually want. But anyway, this is just how it ought to be, organising changes to the community's opinion and not making changes without regard to it, as you did at first with the reduction rule.

1. Leave it as is, 60 is a nice round number
2. Yes, I would want to keep the excitement, sorry Peter, but you are revealing too much this NSC
3. No point penalty, punish the player, not the song.
4. No, 3 weeks is good.
5. Doesn't matter

Voted

1. Leave it as it is, for now 60 is fine, if it comes to the point where there are about 15+ people on the waiting list then maybe it should be brought up a bit.

2. Yes, While it's nice to find out score....I would rather be surprized.

3. No point penalty, why should a good song be punished because a player couldn't vote? If a song is really good it should get the placing it deserves.

4. No, at first I thought 3 weeks was way too fast, but I'm starting to get into the pace of it now.

5. Yes, I don't know about you but when I was on the waiting list watching contests, there were many songs that I wanted to help, I think this might help people on the waiting list be more involved esppecially if they have to wait many editions to take part.

Fearnavigatr wrote:One issue with this poll might be that there's no option to leave the 75% reduction intact, which there exists people who actually want. But anyway, this is just how it ought to be, organising changes to the community's opinion and not making changes without regard to it, as you did at first with the reduction rule.

I agree, I'm glad that we're having the rules decided by the community again, and I like this questionnaire approach
It's much better than last time

My opinions:

1. Leave it, 60's good We can make an extension again sometime later if the queue builds up massively, but right now, I think it's working fine

2. Don't reeeeally mind, though I think perhaps a little too much is being revealed at present. Maybe it would be better to make the clues a little more hidden, e.g. "1st place has taken a big lead now", instead of "1st place has taken a 40-point lead now".

3. I agree with Sean, it's better to keep song points intact for statistical reasons. I stand by my idea that maybe we can keep the points intact, but change the non-voting country's ranking to a 'moral' last place, so that none of the voting countries get unfairly beaten by the rulebreaker.

4. Personally, I would support a longer deadline... I think NSC would be easier to organise if it was done monthly. But, I know for the majority even 3 weeks is considered too long But I stick with my personal vote of a longer time period

5. The problem with adding non-participants to the rest jury is that there's then no way for them to vote in the final
I would fully support this if there was a way of adding their votes to the final too (maybe one extra jury that combines all the non-participants' votes like in FSC?) . But if it's only for the semis, then no. But I put 'don't mind' in the poll

Fearnavigatr wrote:One issue with this poll might be that there's no option to leave the 75% reduction intact, which there exists people who actually want. But anyway, this is just how it ought to be, organising changes to the community's opinion and not making changes without regard to it, as you did at first with the reduction rule.

As I mentioned before this decision was already made to move away from 75% deduction. I really wish we could move forward now as we discussed that part already.

takeru wrote:

Fearnavigatr wrote:One issue with this poll might be that there's no option to leave the 75% reduction intact, which there exists people who actually want. But anyway, this is just how it ought to be, organising changes to the community's opinion and not making changes without regard to it, as you did at first with the reduction rule.

I agree, I'm glad that we're having the rules decided by the community again, and I like this questionnaire approach
It's much better than last time

Please keep in mind that there will be decisions made in the future as well that might not involve public votes. So I'd really appreciate if this can be respected as there are quite a few things going and everything that's being done is to keep things in order. But let's not worry about that for now.

Voted

Seems like I flagged the poll by mistake
I think this was a great idea

We seem to have an issue here regarding authority.
This is a community-based contest, run by the community that participates in it. The role you have Mao, that we've gladly granted you for your interest and capability, is to keep the community organised and make sure it's run the way we want it to, aswell as helping out making decisions to solve urgent issues. Lately, and seemingly on earlier occasions without particular notice, you've taken on a sort of leadership-approach and made some non-urgent decisions with long term impact by yourself, and seem to be intending to continue with it. I've been trying to, in a nice manner, get across the point that this is something you can't do.

No matter how minor or impact-less these things are, an open discussion for the community's input is required to let this game be run the way it's supposed to. If an open suggestion doesn't get responses, particularly negative ones, by all means its fair game to implement it. But there can't be a single person making a decision without even suggesting it first, because this is a community-run game.

You're needed for the community Mao, for exactly the reasons I said in the third sentence of this post, you make order out of chaos. But when making order out of order, make sure you have the justification of doing so on behalf of the community. I'm sorry that I had to bring this up, but it's necessary that it's approached. I know I'm not the only one who's begun to see issues with some of your decisive actions.

^ I agree with everything Jochen wrote! This is a community, and it will not function properly if decisions gets made without the community's input.

voted!

I agree with Jochen. NSC would not have exists if we all 60 people were here. It would look crazy if just one or two people decided about the contest and the rest had nothing to say.

I am glad that we have someone like Mao, that take care of things here, but all the countries must be heard and don't forget the most important thing:
That we all are here to have fun
Noone should be left out, everyone should be able to share their thoughts and make this contest even better!