Dear WL-ers, please give me your thoughts on this concept. 🤍
- Thread starter apasionata
- Start date
- Watchers 11
Canuck
Well-known member
I think we need to clarify something here to create some additional focus on our desired outcome. Are we trying to
1. fix the issue of wait times on the WL, or
2. make conditions bearable for everyone to do their time and wait?
Lots of the suggestions we’ve made fall into one or the other, but not both. So as a group, it’s important that we decide what we’re trying to solve and will help guide us.
From what I see, we basically have two things we’re trying to fix, but in reality it’s muddling this discussion and sending us off in different directions.
1. fix the issue of wait times on the WL, or
2. make conditions bearable for everyone to do their time and wait?
Lots of the suggestions we’ve made fall into one or the other, but not both. So as a group, it’s important that we decide what we’re trying to solve and will help guide us.
From what I see, we basically have two things we’re trying to fix, but in reality it’s muddling this discussion and sending us off in different directions.
Goal 1 (fixing wait times) is a means of accomplishing goal 2 (making waiting more bearable). I believe we are trying to soothe the wait list here by whatever means agreed upon and allowed by forces that be.
This seems like the best way to ensure that WL vote weight stays constant. As long as the WL does not have more than 25 people on it, your vote will always have the same weight with this method. It's more complex than the other suggestions and seems like it might take some work to implement, but if the cohorts are random then it shouldn't be too bad.
I like this idea too, but the only issue is that WL nations might end up having more influence than full roster nations if the WL is small. The total number of points given in the regular system is 58, but the Congrats system gives 131 points. So a 1-person WL would have more than double the power of each roster member (I know it's been a long time since the WL was as small as that, but it can happen). An alternative might be to keep the total points at 58, but spread them out more, e.g. 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1. In this example, 16 of the 28 nations would get points from the WL, which pretty much guarantees at least one of the nations you vote for will get some points.
Uto
Veteran
We do not have the same understanding here. If there are 26 people on WL the number of cohorts is 26/5=5,2 -> rounded up = 6. So there will be 4 cohorts of only 4 people and 2 full cohorts of 5. If the WL drops below 12 people you might see cohorts of 3 people (at 11 it's 3, 4 and 4 and then next below is at 7 as it's 3, 4). Text is shitty tool here, see below in spoiler.
Sorting Tables:
|
Oh, I completely misunderstood you. There has been so much going on today, my brain is tired from trying to keep track of it all
I can't even remember what was going through my mind when I wrote that post 
Somehow I thought the number of cohorts was capped at 5 too, which is where I got the 25=5x5 from. But that doesn't even make sense, so ignore me. I still like your solution; some kind of scaling like this seems like the obvious thing to do to keep voting weights constant.
I’ve been following the discussion with keen interest (and I’m so glad this is becoming an amicable and really productive discussion).
I’ve refrained from commenting, partly because this is addressed to WLers in the WL subforum, so I think this thread is more for your opinions rather than this old fart. And partly because my own thoughts have been well covered by other people (especially the latest from dogmeat)
However, these latest talks about new ideas for presenting WL votes really excite me, so forgive me for pitching in a suggestion! Seeing as NSC is all about simulating ESC, how about running the WLvote like the televote in ESC since 2016? In essence, the participating roster members are the juries and then anybody else contributing votes could be the televote.
So we collect all the non-participants’ votes together, proportionise them as appropriate if necessary (as I understand is the premise of the above suggestions), then announce them at the end.
I guess my suggestion doesn’t differ too much to some of the things suggested above, but I like to think basing it off something from the mother contest is fun and true to NSC’s roots. This is just one suggestion though out of the many interesting ways there could be to revolutionise how the WL vote works in a way that appeals to you WLers.
I’ve refrained from commenting, partly because this is addressed to WLers in the WL subforum, so I think this thread is more for your opinions rather than this old fart. And partly because my own thoughts have been well covered by other people
(especially the latest from dogmeat)However, these latest talks about new ideas for presenting WL votes really excite me, so forgive me for pitching in a suggestion! Seeing as NSC is all about simulating ESC, how about running the WLvote like the televote in ESC since 2016? In essence, the participating roster members are the juries and then anybody else contributing votes could be the televote.
So we collect all the non-participants’ votes together, proportionise them as appropriate if necessary (as I understand is the premise of the above suggestions), then announce them at the end.
I guess my suggestion doesn’t differ too much to some of the things suggested above, but I like to think basing it off something from the mother contest is fun and true to NSC’s roots. This is just one suggestion though out of the many interesting ways there could be to revolutionise how the WL vote works in a way that appeals to you WLers.
I see several suggestions that participating in WLSC should be enough to secure one's place on the WL, because it indicates activity and engagement. However, WLSC and NSC can't really be comparable like that. WLSC is a contest where participants can come and go as they please and participate as sporadically as they want (like a spin-off essentially), and it's also a contest with only one voting round per edition. This doesn't indicate at all how active and engaged that person will be later on in NSC where they have to participate every edition or face punishment, as well as having to go through two voting rounds per edition. While it's true that currently WLers only need to do one voting round per NSC edition, they still have to do it every consecutive edition like clockwork, whereas they can choose which WLSC editions to take part in. There have been many cases on this forum where a person was super active and always voting in one contest they were part of, while completely neglecting another contest they were part of. I'm pretty sure there have been WL members while failing to vote in NSC simultaneously made sure to get their WLSC votes in.
It also comes with a whole host of other questions. Would it just be the latest WLSC participation that would count, or would it be all WLSC editions during the course of the corresponding NSC edition?
It also comes with a whole host of other questions. Would it just be the latest WLSC participation that would count, or would it be all WLSC editions during the course of the corresponding NSC edition?
Barish
Well-known member
Being active in one contest doesn't necessarily indicate the active participation in the other, I understand that. However this comparison is a bit... faulty. Many of us WLers participate in the spin offs as well as participating in WLSC (2 cycles per 1 NSC cycle as you stated) and as well as vote in NSC finals. And we also have to face the consequences if we do not vote in the NSC finals.
And again, it comes down to the same discussion again, failing to vote in NSC doesn't seem that much of a big deal since again 1) effectiveness of our votes 2) although we're in the same community, we're a bit seperated and NSC feels a little alien until we're fully part of it. Being active in WLSC is natural part of it because we do not really have that much choice. Again, this is my experience and I'm talking for myself. I spend the 90% of my time on the forum on WLSC threads.
In short if NSC and WLSC cannot be comparable like that, then we shouldn't compare at all and bring in the acitvity in one contest and not in the other. Because as you said, it doesn't indicate anything at all. Some of us must be just eagerly waiting for their turn in NSC to be active as hell, and some of us just want to have a good time with WLSC while they wait.
HayashiM
Veteran
It's true WLSC is a contest where participants can come and go as they please, however there is quite a few of us who have been participating every single edition possible since I joined the WL 9 months ago - namely Pyreica, Tamausia & Deltannor (though these have become main roster nations by now), Griffin Empire, Effiland, Öösingimäed, Halleloo, Utopolis, Rehi Kaita and Endórë. Most editions have around 20-24 participants at this point, which is not exactly NSC's 27/28 entries per semi/final, but I'd say it's close enough to show dedication when taking part regularly.
The way I'd propose is: a nation can prove its activity by at least one of
a) voting in NSC finals as has been the case till now
b) taking regular part in WLSC. The issue here, of course, is what is "regular". I'd say the average NSC takes slightly more than 3 weeks and WLSC slightly more than 2 weeks. So that gives around 3 WLSC editions per 2 NSC editions. Based on that, the rule I'd suggest here is that at the point of NSC finals deadline, a WL country needs to have taken part in at least 2 of latest 3 WLSC completed editions to meet the requirement. This would of course be optional, if one doesn't want to take part in WLSC, they can simply choose the usual approach.
The main benefit I see is that WL nations can choose the option b) and save time they'd have to dedicate to a) to prove activity while also being part of something. It can be implemented independently of other options here, but it can also be combined with for instance Uto's latest idea above / Gaëlle's idea of stand-in entries.
Note that if you take part in 2 WLSCs per 3 WLSC editions (so per 2 NSC editions), the amount of effort a WL country has to give is approximately the same that would have been required for ranking those 2 NSC finals.
The disadvantages I see are two: 1. this counts with a healthy WLSC - once the number of entries in it drops below, say, 15, I am afraid the option b) would have to be temporarily suspended. 2. There's an additional work to determine which nations meet the requirement b - but there are multiple people who track their private WLSC stats and should be able to tell you this information within a few minutes (atm I know of Gaëlle, randajad and me, maybe there are others), so perhaps this wouldn't have to be such a big issue.
Last edited:
The part in bold seems like a decent compromise actually, should this change eventually come to be. All I'd ask then is that each WLSC host send me a list of WLSC participants and voters at the end of each edition, or else this would require a whole bunch of extra work on my part every time I have to update the roster.
HayashiM
Veteran
The part in bold seems like a decent compromise actually, should this change eventually come to be. All I'd ask then is that each WLSC host send me a list of WLSC participants and voters at the end of each edition, or else this would require a whole bunch of extra work on my part every time I have to update the roster.
This information is also given for every WLSC edition on its nsc wiki page (courtesy of @randajad I presume) - as for instance in a nice table on this WLSC 219 page. Or, as I say, some of us track our own stats and can give you the list of all complying nations within a minute - I can always volunteer for that should this come to be.
Last edited:
Actually, the suggestion from Uto of cohorts seems really cool; a way of giving the WL vote a bit more power and the individuals more representation. I must say it would be a whole lot easier if the idea was presented as simply as possibly though, I'm not super good with numbers etc so them charts and all the dividing/times etc went straight over my head. So a 'for dummies' version would be good (if it is put in action ofc). The core idea of grouping the WLers up and creating multiple sets of votes seems really interesting, and will also help to minimise the chance of any one voters favourites getting massacred and not even making the top 10.
Canuck
Well-known member
I like Nathan’s idea of presenting the WL votes like the ‘public vote’ in ESC. I don’t think the weighting needs to be 50-50 but this idea addresses the issue of WL votes barely counting for anything right now!
Yes it wouldn’t be 50/50, that would give the average WLer even more voting power than the roster nations
But with this system, we could adjust the proportioning to anything: from each WLer’s votes counting fully; it equalling one voter’s worth (similar to how it is now); Or something in between.An advantage is that everyone’s votes will count in some way because the final total is not bound by the top ten. I think you could still fall victim to that in the cohort system depending on who your cohort-mates are. Whereas this just totals up every vote from every WLer.
To illustrate my potential vision, here’s NSC 193’s total WLevote,
In the event that we want WL votes to each count 100%, then we add this televote score as it is.
If we want it to count the same as we have until now, but just represent everyone’s votes better, then we proportion it. 18 nations voted, so dividing by 18 would make it count as one nation’s worth. I don’t think this is particularly fair or interesting as the highest score would just be 4 points.
So we could adapt the cohort idea and meet in the middle by roughly having the WL represent, let’s say, 6 nations’ worth. Dividing the total scores by 3 would then make it count as 6 nations’ worth etc.
Here’s the 6-nations’-worth WLevote (scores are rounded to the nearest multiple of 3)
Which weighting we go for would be subject to a poll vote.
Last edited:
Yes it wouldn’t be 50/50, that would give the average WLer even more voting power than the roster nations
An advantage is that everyone’s votes will count in some way because the final total is not bound by the top ten. I think you could still fall victim to that in the cohort system depending on who your cohort-mates are. Whereas this just totals up every vote from every WLer.
To illustrate my potential vision, here’s NSC 193’s total WLevote,
In the event that we want WL votes to each count 100%, then we add this televote score as it is.
If we want it to count the same as we have until now, but just represent everyone’s votes better, then we proportion it. 18 nations voted, so dividing by 18 would make it count as one nation’s worth. I don’t think this is particularly fair or interesting as the highest score would just be 4 points.
So we could adapt the cohort idea and meet in the middle by roughly having the WL represent, let’s say, 6 nations’ worth. Dividing the total scores by 3 would then make it count as 6 nations’ worth etc.
Here’s the 6-nations’-worth WLevote (scores are rounded to the nearest multiple of 3)
Which weighting we go for would be subject to a poll vote.
I think this is a great idea and with some small tweaks I would be 100% behind it.
The only issue I have with this is how the weighting would work with a small WL. If the WL vote is always 6 nations' worth, then when the WL shrinks to below 6 each of their votes will be worth more than a main roster nation's. So I think part of this rule should also be that the weighting should never exceed the number of nations on the WL. So for example, if the WL only has 5 nations, then the weighting becomes 5 instead of 6.
I am so for this!Yes it wouldn’t be 50/50, that would give the average WLer even more voting power than the roster nations
An advantage is that everyone’s votes will count in some way because the final total is not bound by the top ten. I think you could still fall victim to that in the cohort system depending on who your cohort-mates are. Whereas this just totals up every vote from every WLer.
To illustrate my potential vision, here’s NSC 193’s total WLevote,
In the event that we want WL votes to each count 100%, then we add this televote score as it is.
If we want it to count the same as we have until now, but just represent everyone’s votes better, then we proportion it. 18 nations voted, so dividing by 18 would make it count as one nation’s worth. I don’t think this is particularly fair or interesting as the highest score would just be 4 points.
So we could adapt the cohort idea and meet in the middle by roughly having the WL represent, let’s say, 6 nations’ worth. Dividing the total scores by 3 would then make it count as 6 nations’ worth etc.
Here’s the 6-nations’-worth WLevote (scores are rounded to the nearest multiple of 3)
Which weighting we go for would be subject to a poll vote.
Or we could adjust each edition according to a pre-decided pattern, like the cohorts. Then the proportions would depend on the number of WLers who voted. It’s probably easier mathematically too (though you probably know better than me).
18 nations = 6 cohorts = divide by 3
15 nations = 5 cohorts = divide by 3
10 nations = 3 cohorts = divide by 3
6 nations = 3 cohorts? = divide by 2
3 nations = 3 cohorts (allow votes to count fully)
Or if we want the numbers to line up more with Uto’s suggestion:
25 nations = 5 cohorts of 5 = divide by 5
20 nations = 4 cohorts of 5 = divide by 5
18 nations = 4 cohorts = divide by 5 (or by 4.5 I guess, why not, we’ll get decimals anyway)
15 nations = 3 cohorts = divide by 5
10 nations = 2 cohorts = divide by 5
5 nations = 1 cohort = divide by 5
Last edited:
Ah okay, so you want the weightings of the individual votes to be the same (i.e. the size of the cohorts), not the weighting of the overall WL vote (i.e. the number of cohorts). I agree that that makes more sense.
So you're basically saying we should always divide the WL totals by 5? (Or 3 in your other example.) I feel like this is getting more complicated than it needs to be
dogmeat
Well-known member
- Joined
- January 28, 2010
- Posts
- 6,403
I don't like any idea of giving WL more voting power at all.
Low voting power is not the main reason WLers don't like to vote. If it was, they'd vote in semi reju at roughly similar rate as main roster nations. But 50% of NSC votes in reju, and maybe about 10% of WL does. It's understandable, a good argument was said repeatedly here that WL nations are bound to be less motivated to vote in a contest they're not participating in. So increasing voting power of people who demonstrate little interest in voting seems completely off.
I also don't like how possible scores could potentially inflate ad infinitum with growing WL. At the moment scores are somewhat comparable between editions, which gives us a lot of interesting trivia to look for. With number of voters growing with WL, a song will soon achieve a record score thanks to a record long WL, that will be impossible to beat later if the WL size goes down.
This concept of cohorts brings too much RNG to the results. Given how close NSC results tend to be, winners would often be decided by lucky cohort allocation.
Removing the voting requirement kind will increase the voting power per WLer in a self-regulating process - basically some people will stop voting, up to a point where the rest decided their votes matter enough for them to vote.
Low voting power is not the main reason WLers don't like to vote. If it was, they'd vote in semi reju at roughly similar rate as main roster nations. But 50% of NSC votes in reju, and maybe about 10% of WL does. It's understandable, a good argument was said repeatedly here that WL nations are bound to be less motivated to vote in a contest they're not participating in. So increasing voting power of people who demonstrate little interest in voting seems completely off.
I also don't like how possible scores could potentially inflate ad infinitum with growing WL. At the moment scores are somewhat comparable between editions, which gives us a lot of interesting trivia to look for. With number of voters growing with WL, a song will soon achieve a record score thanks to a record long WL, that will be impossible to beat later if the WL size goes down.
This concept of cohorts brings too much RNG to the results. Given how close NSC results tend to be, winners would often be decided by lucky cohort allocation.
Removing the voting requirement kind will increase the voting power per WLer in a self-regulating process - basically some people will stop voting, up to a point where the rest decided their votes matter enough for them to vote.