I've been in NSC for 13 years as Cydoni-Gibberia but joined here as an autonomous region of my NSC country so I'm not sure why I have been brought into this?
Dear WL-ers, please give me your thoughts on this concept. 🤍
- Thread starter apasionata
- Start date
- Watchers 10
doctormalisimo
Well-known member
The problem is.........there is no problem. NSC is working as it should and there's nothing fundamentally broken with it.
The long waiting list time is awful and I definitely sympathise with people on it (I've been there myself), but these people actively chose to sign up to it knowing how long it would be. We're still in the midst of a global pandemic/lockdowns/WFH so a lot of people have a lot more spare time, so it's only natural that a forum like this would get oversubscribed.
Mandatory WL voting isnt for NSC members ego's benefit - it's the opposite, it's for the benefit of WL members who actively want to be here. I'm open for it to be removed and introduce the measure that Stargazer has suggested, but just be aware that the WL will get a lot bigger if non-voting nations aren't removed. This isn't a solution to a problem, but just a cover-up to make it appear like something has been done.
There is a fine balancing act here. How can we maximise NSC participation without making it too cumbersome to take part in? No one wants 3 semis. No one wants 35-song semis. No one wants quarter-finals. No one wants to make 90+ scoreboards for a final. But also, no one wants to wait 2 years to enter. No one wants to see someone wait 2 years to enter.
I'm going to spitball some solutions here not mentioned yet, but I do kinda agree with the WL filling any gaps in an edition as long as the entries aren't selected based off some sort of MPQ contest:
Comparisons with how other contests on this forum work are meaningless. Each contest has its own unique structure and feel to it. What works in OM would not necessarily work in NSC. And some of my fellow WV OGs will remember the horrors of that contest when it was limitless and had no cap on participation!
And please please please, can we stop hating on "ghost members". You do not have an inherent right to be here over someone else because you post more than them. This contest is first-come first-serve and as long as you can avoid breaking the rules (voting, confirming an entry), you have the right to take part. Feel free to take part in the community, but it's not mandatory. Never prioritise NSC over your real life commitments. These "ghost members" are more welcome than certain people who insist on antagonising the community with every post they make.
The long waiting list time is awful and I definitely sympathise with people on it (I've been there myself), but these people actively chose to sign up to it knowing how long it would be. We're still in the midst of a global pandemic/lockdowns/WFH so a lot of people have a lot more spare time, so it's only natural that a forum like this would get oversubscribed.
Mandatory WL voting isnt for NSC members ego's benefit - it's the opposite, it's for the benefit of WL members who actively want to be here. I'm open for it to be removed and introduce the measure that Stargazer has suggested, but just be aware that the WL will get a lot bigger if non-voting nations aren't removed. This isn't a solution to a problem, but just a cover-up to make it appear like something has been done.
There is a fine balancing act here. How can we maximise NSC participation without making it too cumbersome to take part in? No one wants 3 semis. No one wants 35-song semis. No one wants quarter-finals. No one wants to make 90+ scoreboards for a final. But also, no one wants to wait 2 years to enter. No one wants to see someone wait 2 years to enter.
I'm going to spitball some solutions here not mentioned yet, but I do kinda agree with the WL filling any gaps in an edition as long as the entries aren't selected based off some sort of MPQ contest:
Comparisons with how other contests on this forum work are meaningless. Each contest has its own unique structure and feel to it. What works in OM would not necessarily work in NSC. And some of my fellow WV OGs will remember the horrors of that contest when it was limitless and had no cap on participation!
And please please please, can we stop hating on "ghost members". You do not have an inherent right to be here over someone else because you post more than them. This contest is first-come first-serve and as long as you can avoid breaking the rules (voting, confirming an entry), you have the right to take part. Feel free to take part in the community, but it's not mandatory. Never prioritise NSC over your real life commitments. These "ghost members" are more welcome than certain people who insist on antagonising the community with every post they make.
HayashiM
Veteran
I just mentionned Låpøtré as an example of a WLSC entity that's not going to integrate the NSC - true, that's not the exact same thing like @Schlagerman1 describes, so it's a wrong example. My whole point is that there are only a few WLSC-only cases (potentially none WLSC-only members) and so that this really isn't THE important problem. I'd meant no harm to you nor Låpøtré.
HayashiM
Veteran
The problem is.........there is no problem. NSC is working as it should and there's nothing fundamentally broken with it.
The long waiting list time is awful and I definitely sympathise with people on it (I've been there myself), but these people actively chose to sign up to it knowing how long it would be. We're still in the midst of a global pandemic/lockdowns/WFH so a lot of people have a lot more spare time, so it's only natural that a forum like this would get oversubscribed.
Mandatory WL voting isnt for NSC members ego's benefit - it's the opposite, it's for the benefit of WL members who actively want to be here. I'm open for it to be removed and introduce the measure that Stargazer has suggested, but just be aware that the WL will get a lot bigger if non-voting nations aren't removed. This isn't a solution to a problem, but just a cover-up to make it appear like something has been done.
There is a fine balancing act here. How can we maximise NSC participation without making it too cumbersome to take part in? No one wants 3 semis. No one wants 35-song semis. No one wants quarter-finals. No one wants to make 90+ scoreboards for a final. But also, no one wants to wait 2 years to enter. No one wants to see someone wait 2 years to enter.
I'm going to spitball some solutions here not mentioned yet, but I do kinda agree with the WL filling any gaps in an edition as long as the entries aren't selected based off some sort of MPQ contest:
Comparisons with how other contests on this forum work are meaningless. Each contest has its own unique structure and feel to it. What works in OM would not necessarily work in NSC. And some of my fellow WV OGs will remember the horrors of that contest when it was limitless and had no cap on participation!
And please please please, can we stop hating on "ghost members". You do not have an inherent right to be here over someone else because you post more than them. This contest is first-come first-serve and as long as you can avoid breaking the rules (voting, confirming an entry), you have the right to take part. Feel free to take part in the community, but it's not mandatory. Never prioritise NSC over your real life commitments. These "ghost members" are more welcome than certain people who insist on antagonising the community with every post they make.
Waiting as a problem - honestly, the waiting itself is not really what I mind (others will disagree of course) - I am having fun with WLSC so far. If I wait another year (but not 3), I am good. I'd signed up for this. But I can still push for a change with things that don't make sense to me.
Mandatory WL voting isnt for NSC members ego's benefit - lovely, than I presume the full members can agree we can stop having it mandatory, or that WL can decide the matter for itself, right? Maybe this doesn't fully solve the problem for everybody, but if you least have the alternative option of participating in WLSC as enough proof of interest, I think it does solve at least something for at least someone without hurting anyone else.
Ghosting - I am absolutely ok if some people take part without really commenting and posting. The ghosting I am afraid of is people blocking the waiting list, eventually getting to the main roster but then realising they are not into the contest after all. However you don't need mandatory WL jury voting to prevent this, because WLSC in itself is enough of a sample.
WLSC becoming independent - I don't see this working very well. There are cool aspects to WLSC that make it unique and have been discussed in this thread. In current situation, half of WLSC are also NSC nations, so you can't really do the separation without risking killing/hurting WLSC. If there are 40 people on the WL - fine, let's entertain the idea of an NSC 2.0.
Bunching up - mostly a question for the full NSC member, unlike the other points. If some voluntary individual cases happen, fine, but it's nothing you could enforce or count on in the long term.
Amnesty for returning nations, mandatory WL-semifinal voting, no WL at all - congrats, you've just made the main roster even more exclusive and priviledged. Just when Gaëlle shows that it's already more difficult to remain on the WL than on the main roster, let's kick the WL even more in the guts, sure.
People are here to have fun. The best approach in my opinion is to sensibly allow more freedom for that fun without hurting others.
Letting the top WL nations be a voluntary substitute is a net benefit that doesn't really hurt anyone (sure, the regulars will have to rank 27 countries as usual instead of sometimes getting a negligible easement. How terrible!).
Having WLSC activity as an alternative criteria of measuring NSC related interest doesn't really hurt anyone.
Scrapping mandatory WL juryvote alltogether and imposing it only on the top WLers doesn't hurt anyone.
Uto
Veteran
You don't understand my point. If the rule of having to vote is meant as an activity gauge (and it is) it fails at that, because people can just ghost all day, twat a random.org down every three weeks or so and return to Bowser's Castle. So the rule is A) not working as intended and B) annoying, so I would like to see it changed into something that either A) takes the WL members seriously or B) doesn't rob me of a full working week each year voting in a contest I don't really care for as I'm not in it.
And me being butthurt over results again is not the point. The point is that I have to vote, yet my votes are completely meaningless in the grander scheme of things. I can send totally random votes and the effect will be more or less the same. There's like 20 people on the WL, this is what me voting in NSC looks like for me then:
doctormalisimo | Uto |
12 | 0,6 |
10 | 0,5 |
8 | 0,4 |
7 | 0,35 |
6 | 0,3 |
5 | 0,25 |
4 | 0,2 |
3 | 0,15 |
2 | 0,1 |
1 | 0,05 |
58 | 2,9 |
Pittances. Added risk of being drowned out by the aggregate as well. And it may sound like I feel I have rights to something I clearly don't have any claim on, but may I? I've hosted like 5 WLSC LL's, hosted WLSC proper twice, I've hosted a NSCSO, I've been in like 5 NSCSO's, I've visited NSC LLs twice or so. I am more active than half the NSC members yet I still get this Jim Crow thrown in my face. It was annoying when I started and it is still annoying.
I am overjoyed that finally some reasonable discussion on this is being had though.
doctormalisimo
Well-known member
Sorry I hate doing a quote breakdown, but you do have good points and some things that I just want to clarify:
I think people are opening up to that idea. There's been misrepresentation of where the WL voting comes from (someone used highly homophobic language to refer to it in the other thread) but I think there's definitely community support to removing that. Just be aware it's a double-edged sword and comes with potential pitfalls.
Well what do you want then? Do you want a more exclusive/restrictive contest where it's easier to move up the list and join the roster, or do you want to rot on the WL for years because there's no movement at all. As a WLer, you're wanting higher turnover, these ideas provide that higher turnover. You selfishly want other people to fail to vote, why not double the chance of that happening.
HayashiM
Veteran
Well, I don't think you're really getting me nor Uto. Entering for sure is an important thing, but it's just as much about that as it is about how we spend our time before entering. At least for me, that is.
HayashiM
Veteran
1. These ideas do contribute to a higher turnover... but in the waiting list only
2. I just want people to have fun. For now, I am perfectly fine with waiting. Get out of the roster once you don't have as much fun anymore/when you don't have enough time (if you fail the current red dot rule, chances are you truly don't have that time). But given Gaëlle's point about difficulty of remaining on the main roster/waiting list, I don't see making things even worse for the WL as a good solution.
doctormalisimo
Well-known member
If you don't care, why are you here? Go on and talk about how annoying it is that ghosts are ahead of you in the list, yet people further down must be pissed off that someone who openly talks about how much they aren't interested is above them, and then goes on to victimise himself about how he has to follow these awful rules he's not being forced to follow. By all means, please raise issues you think need to be discussed, but coming into this with an attitude that you don't care just means your opinion is pointless. There's a WL full of people who are interested and eager to join us, and this whole discussion is for their benefit.
And it would be appreciated if you didnt compare the treatment of black people in America in the 20th century to a forum song contest. Grow up.
Uto
Veteran
I am on the WL waiting for over a year to get in and it has taken me over 40 hours of my life voting while getting nothing in return and you have the gall to question my allegiances? Wild stuff. Also, this is just one big ad hominem, would much prefer you just sticking to the matter at hand. I might be annoying to you, it doesn't matter. It is not a valid reason to not listen to someone.
And I used Jim Crow, could have picked apartheid or Animal Farm or whatever. I some hyperbolic comparisons annoy you that much, well, sucks for you I guess.
Do you really think letting returnees get a higher spot in the WL will benefit people in the WL ?? It will only benefit those who are in the roster currently and might drop out in the future. Not the newcomer who is 14th in said WL. The turnover should be higher for everyone. And it's not because people are returnee that they more legitimate in joining than those who are debuting.
It's true however, that voting in finals helps a little bit in getting rid of less invested people. But it hasn't much as an effect as you think it might do : in the past year, only 2 people dropped out because it, Zonne147 and JamieBrown. 2 out of ~17. And for all I know, they could just have asked the mods to get them out of the list. And we shouldn't forget the probability that some might just random.org the whole thing.
But as it still has a small effect, I don't think we should scrap totally the idea of WLers showing commitment. We just have to find the right formula so they don't feel like they're screwed over, which is what this whole debate is about. Waiting isn't the problem, they have to as the roster is full anyway (and none of us want a bigger one), but it can be a better experience.
And about all of this in general : pointing out the problems and wanting things to change is not the same as having no interest in NSC. For all it is, it might even be the contrary. We care about this contest and want to improve it. You care about this contest and want to improve it too. We just don't have the same ideas.
Jan said it more than once : people are here to have fun. People do, BUT think they can enjoy it even more. That's it.
doctormalisimo
Well-known member
I mean, it was your idea
It certainly wouldn't be fair, but we've long established that we're not looking for a "fair" way of sorting the WL/debutants. If people feel there's less pressure to stay in and keep their place, they will be more likely to withdraw and there's no guarantee that person will ever come back. Trying to get a high turnover rate shouldnt involve kicking out active, eager participants, but rather it should involve empowering people to withdraw when they want to.
And please don't think I'm devaluing your opinion or your dedication, you do have some very nice ideas and I know how strongly you feel about this. We can disagree on some things, but I do largely agree with what you're trying to achieve.
But I never said that returnees should get priority over newcomersI mean, it was your idea
It certainly wouldn't be fair, but we've long established that we're not looking for a "fair" way of sorting the WL/debutants. If people feel there's less pressure to stay in and keep their place, they will be more likely to withdraw and there's no guarantee that person will ever come back. Trying to get a high turnover rate shouldnt involve kicking out active, eager participants, but rather it should involve empowering people to withdraw when they want to.
If participants are eager then they don't have to be afraid of being kicked out, because it means rules would be followed. But to empower people to withdraw when they want to, then you have to make the WL shorter, and to make the WL shorter you have to... make place. By 'kicking out' (I don't like this expression as if you get out, then it's your own fault in the first place for not following the rules) those who are less engaged at the moment. It's like a snake biting its own tail.
It is not fair, you said it yourself, but we can try to aim the fairest formula, for everyone involved. I wouldn't take pleasure in doing this, endorsing such a rule isn't nice but I have yet to find a better choice. Is it okay to keep a place in the roster when you're less committed to it while there are plenty of people eager to join ?
Yes, they might never come back. It's unfortunate, especially if it's people you grew to like over the years. But more will get in and the circle of life will continue.
apasionata
Veteran
Status quo is toxic, darling.
doctormalisimo
Well-known member
Ok, so what would you recommend as a rule? 10 posts per day? You have to post in each of the show threads? You need to be online at 5am CET every day? Where does the line get drawn between who is a ghost and who deserves to stay in NSC? Do you have some current examples of nations you'd like to see kicked off?But I never said that returnees should get priority over newcomers
If participants are eager then they don't have to be afraid of being kicked out, because it means rules would be followed. But to empower people to withdraw when they want to, then you have to make the WL shorter, and to make the WL shorter you have to... make place. By 'kicking out' (I don't like this expression as if you get out, then it's your own fault in the first place for not following the rules) those who are less engaged at the moment. It's like a snake biting its own tail.
It is not fair, you said it yourself, but we can try to aim the fairest formula, for everyone involved. I wouldn't take pleasure in doing this, endorsing such a rule isn't nice but I have yet to find a better choice. Is it okay to keep a place in the roster when you're less committed to it while there are plenty of people eager to join ?
Yes, they might never come back. It's unfortunate, especially if it's people you grew to like over the years. But more will get in and the circle of life will continue.
Wanting to purge people for the crime of having a busier life than you is certainly a solution to the problem, but you'll find it hard to convince people to vote for their own potential suicide.
Please, don't try to play the smart game. You know very well where I'm going to.
Following rules is the most basic thing you can do. All I'm asking is that these rules are the same for everyone. Aka no more than 2 failure to vote in final. Period.
Like it is for WL.
Is it that hard of a concept to grasp ? Or are you telling me that people on WL have less of a busy life than those on the roster ?
You can oppose to this argument the fact that main roster nations have to vote in semi too. It's true, I can give you that. But again, you know what you get yourself into.
Right now there is no one because people are all currently following the rules. Some months ago however it wasn't the case (and because of evil dots they were either thrown out indeed or withdrew by themseves). It doesn't mean it won't start again.
Fearnavigatr
Well-known member
Because they are two different rules that were introduced and voted on for different reasons and by different opinions over 10 years apart. Voting in the final for roster members (aka the "evil dots" rule) was introduced just over a year ago, and three consecutive strikes was the most popular idea. A factor considered that likely made that amount win was the fact that the first strike can disqualify you from entering the following edition, and since roster members normally don't think to vote when they're not participating, two strikes was considered too harsh. It's a complement to the participation rule designed to prevent systematic abuse, it wasn't intended as a way to prune the roster or artificially increase turnover rate.
The requirement to confirm (a rule as old as NSC itself) is the original parallel rule to WLers' requirement to vote, and that was decreased from 3 to 2 strikes about 8 years ago to match the WL. If I'm not remembering wrong, the WL strikes were also originally set at 3, but decreased to 2 when the waiting list was getting more AWOLs (a change I personally disagreed with, for the record, I believe it should all be 3 strikes).
All the numbers are adjustable, as long as someone initiates the change.
Last edited:
Kimrt
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Posts
- 2,139
That's the truth tho. You can always leave the roster to help the waiting list move?
Hugs
Use Animal Farm if you like, but please do not compare NSC to Jim Crow or apartheid... All it does is damage your credibility. To quote your own post, this is just one big ad hominem, would much prefer you just sticking to the matter at hand.
If you continue to use such comparisons, I can guarantee it will suck for you, too. The only reason I haven't said anything before now is because you haven't been targeting individual members with these comments.