• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

the well, r2

Status
Not open for further replies.
if you have an insight that "not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone)" voted for locopoke because of faint, then how are you possibly not aware that faint tried to campaign for locopoke?

thankyou for blowing the whole thing wide open, though
 
So apparently I forced myself into voting for locopoke too. I guess that would explain why you deleted my post.
 
Is it perhaps because I am friends with many of the people who voted for locopoke and know that they have wanted to see him in the well since the time he was previously voted in? Is it that mind boggling that people would vote for locopoke of their own accord?
 
not mind boggling at all, especially since he was nominated previously

note that jabba's post nominating locopoke still exists as it was not painfully obvious to me that he was whipped into voting for locopoke

the myriad of other users who clearly belong to the same clique, however, all had their posts deleted

i've explained how this does and doesn't work, and in r1 i made it very clear i wasn't going to tolerate any more attempts to screw with the system

let's get the thread back on track
 
It seems reasonable to me that one user might want to campaign for another user in a case like this. I wanted iconic in the last well because I wanted to know more about him so I told people on IRC to vote for him. locopoke is a user with an interesting history (of both trolling and contributing) so I can see why Faint would want him in the well. If you want to impose arbitrary restrictions on the motivations that a user can have for posting nominations, you should make them explicit in the original post.
 
Swaggersaurus said:
not mind boggling at all, especially since he was nominated previously

note that jabba's post nominating locopoke still exists as it was not painfully obvious to me that he was whipped into voting for locopoke

the myriad of other users who clearly belong to the same clique, however, all had their posts deleted

i've explained how this does and doesn't work, and in r1 i made it very clear i wasn't going to tolerate any more attempts to screw with the system

let's get the thread back on track
Click to expand...

prior to my "campaigning" for locopoke there were 5 legitimate noms for him. you can look at the post time if you don't believe me. not putting those posts back would in my eyes be a campaign AGAINST locopoke. he was supposed to be in a well before so I don't see the big deal in this. we are nominating a user that just got unbanned after 2 years, so it's not like people wouldn't have questions for him. he's not a random user that we throw in as a joke. we actually want to see locopoke in the well.

assuming everyone that voted him belongs in a 'clique' is just like saying anyone that voted aldaron is part of his #pokemon clique. put the noms back before me and end it. my vote should also be included though, since as I previously stated I did not force myself to vote for anybody I didn't want too.
 
my objection was to users having no idea who a user was and bandwagoning them, as evidently was occurring

"campaigning" in this sense is not a community driven process whereby people all pool in and find out more about a user they have an interest in, but a group of people shepherding users that may have absolutely no idea or care for the subject of their votes into voting for them

that is what is wrong with campaigning

the restriction isn't arbitrary at all -- it's common sense. trying to workaround it is abusingthe process

the whole facade about "he's not a random" user is, as i have stated before, not the point at all. i don't care whether locopoke goes in the well or not. i care about why, and i care about people abusing the process and wasting my and everyone else's time

cookie said:
smirk
Click to expand...

yes, you bastard, i'm this close, hahaha
 
Swaggersaurus said:
my objection was to users having no idea who a user was and bandwagoning them, as evidently was occurring

"campaigning" in this sense is not a community driven process whereby people all pool in and find out more about a user they have an interest in, but a group of people shepherding users that may have absolutely no idea or care for the subject of their votes into voting for them

that is what is wrong with campaigning

the restriction isn't arbitrary at all -- it's common sense. trying to workaround it is abusingthe process

the whole facade about "he's not a random" user is, as i have stated before, not the point at all. i don't care whether locopoke goes in the well or not. i care about why, and i care about people abusing the process and wasting my and everyone else's time



yes, you bastard, i'm this close, hahaha
Click to expand...

and so as I previously stated you put back every locopoke vote back before I posted, and that's it. unless you think I was responsible for those too? I highlighted #pokemon last night when the vast majority of the votes came in. the nominations before were hours ahead.
 
yes, they are still suspicious in my eyes

if that breaks your heart, you have only yourself to blame for compromising the process!
 
the deleting of posts because you perceive them to be in a clique and therefore couldn't be legitimate nominations is absurd. the well is always a popularity contest anyway. you would be sorely mistaken if you don't think people try to game it by getting votes for someone on IRC. you're attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist and has never been an issue before even though i would be fairly certain many users were bandwagonning in the past.

how is it a time waster? everyone is going to get a turn anyway. if you have some form of cancer or disease and absolutely can't wait then fine, but i don't think it's a big deal on who goes first if there are plenty of legitimate votes. az, you're making an issue out of something that you never clarified was wrong.
 
clarified in well r1

if you openly admit that people do it, then how am i trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? i'm trying to fix a problem that we apparently both know definitely exists
 
Swaggersaurus said:
clarified in well r1

if you openly admit that people do it, then how am i trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? i'm trying to fix a problem that we apparently both know definitely exists
Click to expand...

because bandwagonning isn't a problem...it has and will happened regardless and it never hurts anyone.
 
it's a problem because it interferes with how the well works

that's the end of it
 
i've been informed by goku to retract my previous nominations and vote for locopoke, the prince of all saiyans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top