Dear WL-ers, please give me your thoughts on this concept. 🤍

[berlyda]

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 don't buy this argument. Yes, their votes count as much as main roster reju voters in the semi. But main roster reju votes aren't worth much to begin with... It's nothing compared to the votes of a main roster nation in their own semi. When you consider this, the voting power of a reju vote is not a whole lot better than a waliju vote.

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.

Yeah, it might be good to put a cap on this. Uto suggested it should be capped at 5 cohorts.

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.

This could be fixed by simply adding up the totals and dividing by a fixed number (with a cap on the total points given) instead of allocating cohorts.

 

[dogmeat]

I don't buy this argument. Yes, their votes count as much as main roster reju voters in the semi. But main roster reju votes aren't worth much to begin with... It's nothing compared to the votes of a main roster nation in their own semi. When you consider this, the voting power of a reju vote is not a whole lot better than a waliju vote.

And yet half of main nations vote in reju. Which shows that voting power alone is not a major motivation for voting. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[Leydan]

That's a major assumption you make though about them not reju voting? There is literally 0 incentive or even a reason for them to reju vote at all, so why would they? other than just because they really want to. In your own words half of NSC don't do it either, so it's a bit of a weak comparison to make. I also don't think the fact it can mess with the trivia is a good enough reason to not do it. The same argument made for the cohorts changing results could have even been said for when the WL was first introduced, a random set of voters adding on more points than can potentially change very close results. Yet here it is. We're discussing how to give the WL more representation and inclusion within the contest. Increasing their voting power is one good way of doing it, especially given the examples shown in this thread by other people.

I think most of the ideas presented are a really good way of making the WL more inclusive and part of the community and not just a list of outcasts waiting. Allowing people to fill in spots to cap it out at 60 is an easy fix in one part, and if people don't want a patchy history then they can just say when sending a reserve entry - only to be counted if a main spot opens up. The knock on effect of that for the main roster is negilible. It would also go one way to reducing cohort sizes if that is a real concern for people. The cohorts could even be made using the stats so they're a more balanced representation of NSC - just as the pots are, instead of people with similar tastes grouped together by chance.

 

[berlyda]

And yet half of main nations vote in reju. Which shows that voting power alone is not a major motivation for voting. That's what I'm trying to say.

I see, well I agree that there are other factors. But I think it would help to give the WL a fairer representation in the final.

 

[Deleted member 5361]

I think this discussion has taken a completely different turn. I don't mind giving the WL more voting power if that is what they want, but how does that solve the biggest problem this contest has always faced - aka the super-long waiting time for the newbies? Yeah, sure, let's give them more power, but how much difference does it make when they don't get to take part in NSC themselves?

 

[takeru]

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

I’m not necessarily posting what I want, just making suggestions that line up with other things that have been said so far. (I’m not too sure what I want, I think this first part is mainly to see what WLers want anyway).
The “WLevote” idea can be applied in any way, and how we decide those proportions would be a separate poll. If people wanted it to be consistent every edition then yeah, the division would serve that job instead (divide total by x to get y nation’s worth; y to be pre-decided in a poll - status quo is y=1)

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.

A (kinda) consolation of the WLevote system is that, for statistical or record-keeping purposes, we still have the “jury-vote” to show the old system’s result.
But I’m afraid Orian that I think this way of thinking is precisely what the WL members are talking about. Sometimes we have to bite the bullet and make a significant change for the better if it calls for it, with statistical comparability being a sacrifice that doesn’t actually hurt anyone. ESC did precisely that in 2016.
But at the end of the day, we would all be voting on these decisions together anyway. The proportional power of the WLevote could be voted for as 1-nation’s-worth, and that would essentially be the same as now (just the 58 points would be spread throughout all 28 final nations, not just the top 10).

And yes, low voting power probably isn’t the main reason. The other reasons are being discusssed through things like WLers filling the gaps, non-mandatory voting etc. There are lot of different threads to unpack in this conversation

 

[berlyda]

(divide total by x to get y nation’s worth; y to be pre-decided in a poll - status quo is y=1)

Sorry to bring this up again, but I thought x was the one being decided in a poll? Since y is the number of 'cohorts' and that will be dynamic based on WL size. Just trying to make sure I have the details right.

I think this discussion has taken a completely different turn. I don't mind giving the WL more voting power if that is what they want, but how does that solve the biggest problem this contest has always faced - aka the super-long waiting time for the newbies? Yeah, sure, let's give them more power, but how much difference does it make when they don't get to take part in NSC themselves?

There are two kinds of solutions: those that make the wait shorter, and those that make the wait more tolerable. The ones we are discussing now do the latter. Making the wait shorter would be much better, I agree, but it's been hard figuring out anything that does that in an acceptable way. I definitely encourage people to make suggestions though.

 

[Deleted member 5361]

There are two kinds of solutions: those that make the wait shorter, and those that make the wait more tolerable. The ones we are discussing now do the latter. Making the wait shorter would be much better, I agree, but it's been hard figuring out anything that does that in an acceptable way. I definitely encourage people to make suggestions though.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and if the WL had already been established to have to continue to vote periodically, then sure - go ahead. But there were so many people who have made it clear that they don't want to have to continue to vote in a contest they're not partaking in, and I am not sure how much influence this change will possibly have on those cases.

If we're going to give the WL more power, then we need to also establish that there won't be an alternation between WLSC participation and voting in the finals when accounting for a user's interest in NSC. Because it becomes counter-productive if they will continue not to want to vote and take part in WLSC instead - whilst the rest get more power and continue to vote.

 

[dogmeat]

I don't believe more voting power is good way to closer integration of WL with NSC. You could give me 100000 points to distribute in OM or FSC or any another contest I'm not in, and I literally wouldn't bother, because I feel no personal bond with it. And no amount of points will make me feel any closer to it.

But I’m afraid Orian that I think this way of thinking is precisely what the WL members are talking about. Sometimes we have to bite the bullet and make a significant change for the better if it calls for it, with statistical comparability being a sacrifice that doesn’t actually hurt anyone. ESC did precisely that in 2016.

I'm definitely open and willing to make sacrifices. I'm one of few people open to a radical idea of adding the entire WL at once and introducing quarterfinals. I only want the sacrifice to be worth it. The ideas you're discussing is not a big change in anyone's life. The gain is tiny - you're not making people's wait any shorter, you're not making the wait super exciting either, you merely make them look at the final scoreboard and go "oh yay, my favorite got 3 points from the WL".
Yes, statistical comparability is a loss that would hurt me. You could say it's abstract and intangible, but isn't voting too? It's all just numbers on a screen we're talking about.
ESC has always been a mess when it comes to it, changing system every few years, they're more concerned with viewership and producing an interesting TV show, so it's probably not a good example to follow.

That's a major assumption you make though about them not reju voting? There is literally 0 incentive or even a reason for them to reju vote at all, so why would they?

Umm, yes? That's exactly what I said. I don't get what you're trying to argue here.

In your own words half of NSC don't do it either, so it's a bit of a weak comparison to make.

There's a big difference between half and nearly all.

 

[Leydan]

Umm, yes? That's exactly what I said. I don't get what you're trying to argue here.


There's a big difference between half and nearly all.

Because what has the WL got to gain from reju voting? The Main roster get bonus points for reju voting, the WL get nothing. Not to mention main roster nations are actually full members taking part so reju voting can be important. You're basing your argument on an assumption that is misguided and comparing the WL to NSC when one side benefits from reju voting and the other gets nothing.

 

[dogmeat]

I don't think people are reju voting for those silly 6 bonus points. PQs have nothing to gain and they still vote.

 

[takeru]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I thought x was the one being decided in a poll? Since y is the number of 'cohorts' and that will be dynamic based on WL size. Just trying to make sure I have the details right.

Ahh good point, I see.
So, deciding and settling x (how the points are divided) in advance would ensure each WLer has the same voting power each edition.

Deciding and settling y (how many voters’ worth it counts for in the grand total of the NSC edition) in advance would ensure the WLevote is the same consistent proportion of the final votes every edition.

So it depends which angle we go for. Both would be at the expense of the other in this system.



And yes, I agree this conversation is a little off track from the original proposals and the more drastic changes we could make to the WL. We definitely shouldn’t lose sight of those as well. There’s a lot of different things being discussed, some big, some small, but that’s a good thing!

 

[berlyda]

Ahh good point, I see.
So, deciding and settling x (how the points are divided) in advance would ensure each WLer has the same voting power each edition.

Deciding and settling y (how many voters’ worth it counts for in the grand total of the NSC edition) in advance would ensure the WLevote is the same consistent proportion of the final votes every edition.

So it depends which angle we go for. Both would be at the expense of the other in this system.

Yep, exactly. But we could try to do both by settling x in advance and also imposing a cap on how high y can be (which would override the chosen x value when we reach it).

And yeah @Lenalite I agree that it wouldn't really make sense to do both this and the WLSC alternative.

 

[Uto]

Yeah, it might be good to put a cap on this. Uto suggested it should be capped at 5 cohorts.

No, I said that the number of people in a cohort needs a cap. When all cohorts are full and a new member joins WL a new cohort is created. So yeah a WL of 44 members for instance would have 9 cohorts at a cap of 5 and 8 at a cap of 6. I don't think such a long WL is reasonable to expect though. Think long WL is also byproduct of a strong WLSC environment atm. That will be greatly diminished if WLSC grows too big.

Issues with the cohort idea exist though, one is that people not voting can increase voting power for certain members at random and of course the perceived complexity of it (when it's really rather simple, but some people see numbers and die on the spot).

Perhaps the takeru idea is preferable. Just have WL votes set at an exact ratio. I don't really know. Regardless, idea of any increased WL votes being presented at once as if they are some sort of televote seems fine to me obviously. When the points haul there is increased it's probably quite exciting for everyone to have them all coming in at once.

dogmeat argument of records being broken and other such trivia-type arguments while valid seem awfully weak to me. If people care so much about these things I don't think they have a healthy perspective on things. If you want a fair comparison you can always just look at the record for highest points percentage and base the size of your electronic ego on that.

 

[berlyda]

No, I said that the number of people in a cohort needs a cap. When all cohorts are full and a new member joins WL a new cohort is created. So yeah a WL of 44 members for instance would have 9 cohorts at a cap of 5 and 8 at a cap of 6. I don't think such a long WL is reasonable to expect though. Think long WL is also byproduct of a strong WLSC environment atm. That will be greatly diminished if WLSC grows too big.

Ah okay. Yes, it's probably not something we will ever have to seriously worry about, but it's good to have a clause in the rules to catch it just in case.

 

[Morty]

Imo, the bigger the WL is, the more points they should get to give. I put together this before I had to leave for work this morning:

1 WL nation: Divide by 1 = 1 vote (one set of NSC votes, 58 points in total)
2 WL nations: Divide by 2 = 1 vote
3 WL nations: Divide by 3 = 1 vote
4 WL nations: Divide by 4 = 1 vote
5 WL nations: Divide by 5 = 1 vote
6 WL nations: Divide by 3 = 2 votes (two sets of NSC votes, 116 points in total)
7 WL nations: Divide by 3,5 = 2 votes
8 WL nations: Divide by 4 = 2 votes
9 WL nations: Divide by 3 = 3 votes (174 points)
10 WL nations: Divide by 3,33 = 3 votes
11 WL nations: Divide by 3,67 = 3 votes
12 WL nations: Divide by 3 = 4 votes (232 points)
13 WL nations: Divide by 3,25 = 4 votes
14 WL nations: Divide by 3,5 = 4 votes
15 WL nations: Divide by 3 = 5 votes (290 points)
16 WL nations: Divide by 3,2 = 5 votes
17 WL nations: Divide by 3,4 = 5 votes
18 WL nations: Divide by 3 = 6 votes (348 points)
19 WL nations: Divide by 3,167 = 6 votes
20 WL nations: Divide by 3,33 = 6 votes
21 WL nations: Divide by 3,5 = 6 votes
22 WL nations: Divide by 3,67 = 6 votes

And so on. And if the 348 points looks scary, a full roster voting would give 3480 points. So a WL at the current size would give 10% of what the rest of us can do. To me, that seems fair. And unlike the ESC, we wouldn't be doubling the total score here. Would there be a new points record? Maybe. But in the last 100 editions, only 40 songs has reached 200 points or more. Yindy's score will still be hard to beat. But the record is now over 100 editions old. That tells me that maybe it's time to increase the chances of breaking the record a bit.

But I also want to point out that I want this added TOGETHER with the idea of WL nations filling the vacant spots in each edition, not instead of it. For me, this is all about making the experience better for the people stuck on the WL. So to give a few of them a chance to shine every edition, as well as making all of their voices heard a bit better during the voting, would be a lot better than the system we have today.

I think the only way we can make the long wait shorter is to make NSC less attractive, so that more of us will withdraw, and I don't think any of us really wants that. So the WL will remain long. The only realistic option is to make the WL time less painful. And I think we're on the right track. Altho, it remains to be seen what comes out of the polls eventually, there's a big silent majority here...

I don't think people are reju voting for those silly 6 bonus points. PQs have nothing to gain and they still vote.

It certainly helps. I would reju vote less often if I didn't have that 6 points bonus waiting for me.

 

[HayashiM]

But I also want to point out that I want this added TOGETHER with the idea of WL nations filling the vacant spots in each edition, not instead of it. For me, this is all about making the experience better for the people stuck on the WL. So to give a few of them a chance to shine every edition, as well as making all of their voices heard a bit better during the voting, would be a lot better than the system we have today.

I think the only way we can make the long wait shorter is to make NSC less attractive, so that more of us will withdraw, and I don't think any of us really wants that. So the WL will remain long. The only realistic option is to make the WL time less painful. And I think we're on the right track.

This.
I understand many can see the length of the WL as the main issue. But at the same time, I don't think there's any good solution to that without making someone's life more difficult, which is something I am against. I don't want to actively wish someone else drops out so I can get in, this space isn't a corporate foodchain.

For me, making WL's life nicer without making conditions substantially worse for the main roster is the right way to go. Then again, most of the proposals here go in this direction anyway...

 

[soundofsilence]

How about calculate the mean deviation of the scores