Desert Island VII Master List, Part Four

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't necessarily think it's the format, and in fact, I still think this is better than voting, for multiple reasons.

Good to hear that Impy's pull out won't shake things up too much though.
 
Do you have a better idea?

Well, uh, voting. I've been supporting that from the start, as I feel that a format that gives list‐listening pertinence is superior. Kind of sucks that a few of the lists I did actually listen to are now completely irrelevant. Now, I realize that's more on me than the format itself, but if the rankings had been closed off on the day given, people would have wasted about 12 hours of their time on lists created by people who can't take 10 minutes to throw together a ranking of some sort.
 
Honestly, there's no one way this is going to work because most people make a list and then that's it, they're done. They don't come back and comment on anyone else's, they probably don't even listen to anyone else's and that's it. So, that's why there were only 8 or 9 votes per thread in Desert Island voting competitions, though I believe that number is more accurate to the summer edition of this little game here (but I've said enough about that in the past). Now, I can't even vote for these three lists that are gone, I listened to them, I enjoyed them, but now they're gone and that's it. Yeah, it was good times music listening, but I feel like I kind of wasted my time on them when there were other lists I didn't get a chance to hear and just had to go off of my gut instinct towards what I know and love on them/the way they were sequenced.

Anyways, simple fact is no way of doing this is going to present 100% results because we have yet to have 100% participation.

I still despise this particular format with every fiber of my being, however.
 
Meh, I don't see what the big deal is. If when we were voting, we were averaging 17 or more votes per round from people who'd actually listened to all the lists, then I'd say we should've been doing that. That format didn't seem to work, though, so now we have this. For what it's worth, I felt closer to the lists this time more than any other time. :shrug:
 
Well, uh, voting. I've been supporting that from the start, as I feel that a format that gives list‐listening pertinence is superior. Kind of sucks that a few of the lists I did actually listen to are now completely irrelevant. Now, I realize that's more on me than the format itself, but if the rankings had been closed off on the day given, people would have wasted about 12 hours of their time on lists created by people who can't take 10 minutes to throw together a ranking of some sort.

But is voting via polls more pertinent for playlist listening? I don't think so; in fact, I think it's worse. At least here we are trying to set parameters for people and set up a timeline of some sort. Is it going to be 100%? Not a chance in hell, but I think it's better than the other option.

That's just my opinion though. It was my assumption that most people preferred this format. If that's not the case, we can always go back to polls next time.
 
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on disliking this format. For me, it gives me no feeling of impetus to listen to the lists because the deadline always seems so far away. With the polls, I had such a small amount of time, and it got the job done for me. Plus, with the polls, I was more likely to give the lists multiple listens, not something I'm saying everyone needs to do, but it allowed for more good times as well as increased interest in the lists.
 
But is voting via polls more pertinent for playlist listening? I don't think so; in fact, I think it's worse. At least here we are trying to set parameters for people and set up a timeline of some sort. Is it going to be 100%? Not a chance in hell, but I think it's better than the other option.

How is being given a loose timeframe more specific than a date for the day the poll is taking place? If you know when two lists are being voted on, you know what order in which to listen to the lists. The pertinence is inherent in the fact that the window to listen is so small.

We had this discussion ages ago regarding the gap between the announcement of the tournament and the first polls; time gives people a license to procrastinate. I know this because I'm as much at fault as anyone.

Sorry to come across as hostile, I truly don't mean to. I just feel this format is 9/10ths terrible. If others feel that its flaws are outweighed by its benefits, it's certainly not enough to make me drop out of future DIs, and I don't want to make this one any less pleasant; quite the opposite, in fact.
 
There is no answer, if you ask me. There aren't 20 people on this board willing to listen to 160 minute playlists nineteen times, straight up. There are just enough people who will make them, but not enough to listen to them.
 
How is being given a loose timeframe more specific than a date for the day the poll is taking place? If you know when two lists are being voted on, you know what order in which to listen to the lists. The pertinence is inherent in the fact that the window to listen is so small.

We had this discussion ages ago regarding the gap between the announcement of the tournament and the first polls; time gives people a license to procrastinate. I know this because I'm as much at fault as anyone.

Sorry to come across as hostile, I truly don't mean to. I just feel this format is 9/10ths terrible. If others feel that its flaws are outweighed by its benefits, it's certainly not enough to make me drop out of future DIs, and I don't want to make this one any less pleasant; quite the opposite, in fact.

That's why we did four threads, so everyone could get a smaller amount of playlists in a certain timeframe, and it gave people an order to go through them. The window to listen to them was smaller than the overall tournament timeline.

Let's see how tonight's thread goes.
 
But there was no deadline to listen to those four lists in each thread. If THAT had existed, that would've solved at least the huge timeframe issue.

My other problem is that I enjoyed the conversation that surrounded DIV with the running diary thread, that was a great idea, I don't know why we didn't keep it up. Here, I felt like if I made more than a few posts in a row, I was overdoing it and it was kind of souring.
 
Do you honestly think if I had put a deadline on each thread, that it would have made a difference? I don't.

Conversation and feedback was encouraged in each Master thread, in lieu of a specific running diary thread located in OOC. What was the difference? I posted just as much as before.

Again, I'm not saying it's perfect. Nothing is and ever will be. That's just the way it goes.
 
But there was no deadline to listen to those four lists in each thread. If THAT had existed, that would've solved at least the huge timeframe issue.

Get Utahn Justice on the payroll and we can swing this. They've been trained since birth to control listening habits in private residences.

I think the influence of the format is being exaggerated.

Well, it certainly does influence the amount of competitors.
 
Honestly, do we really need 20 competitors next time around? It's ridiculously daunting to get around to listening to every list, especially if, y'know, you want to spend some time listening to other music, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who hectically throws in as much DI listening as possible in the last few days before deadline. Shorten the amount of entries and you've taken out half the problem.
 
Sorry, Phanan, I didn't mean at all to come across like I'm super duper upset about this or anything. As long as I'm getting the new music I'm happy.
 
Honestly, do we really need 20 competitors next time around? It's ridiculously daunting to get around to listening to every list, especially if, y'know, you want to spend some time listening to other music, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who hectically throws in as much DI listening as possible in the last few days before deadline. Shorten the amount of entries and you've taken out half the problem.

This would probably be the most viable solution. Cut it down to 10 players, and I think we'd be set. Sure, it wouldn't allow as many participants, but we could rotate out or have more frequent competitions.

And, yeah, I think the format's being highly exaggerated here...I really don't see how it's any different than the voting scheme, in which some were from people who weren't competing, probably hadn't listened to the lists and were just voting based on how it looked/if they were tight with one of the competitors.
 
I think cutting the player count to 10 would only cause some dormant debates to resurface. The results would be less conclusive due to even fewer rankings and the smaller number of competitors/variety would cause our elite crue to appear even less motley. Speaking of appearances...

and were just voting based on how it looked/if they were tight with one of the competitors.

...this does need to be addressed. I think anonymity is something to look into for future competitions. Not that I can't tell an Ashley list apart from a Cassie list already. :wink:
 
AB was very high on my list and so Mr. V. :bummed: But I am very excited to see the results! :hyper:
 
Honestly, do we really need 20 competitors next time around? It's ridiculously daunting to get around to listening to every list, especially if, y'know, you want to spend some time listening to other music, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who hectically throws in as much DI listening as possible in the last few days before deadline. Shorten the amount of entries and you've taken out half the problem.

Why don't we cut the time down to 60 minutes per playlist? That is more than enough time per playlist and it gives you an overall idea of their tastes based on that. I had to skimmed thru a lot of the playlist this time around because I have a personal life with finals and stuff. I think this format is fine but 160 minutes is way too long for a playlist. Heck, mine was only 108 minutes and I was satifised with it. I just think we just keep this format but I have boundary on how long each playlist should be. So then we only have 20 playlists worth 60 minutes long. Most CDS are 60 mins long, am I right? Just an idea. :shrug:
 
I'm excited. I loved everything I heard this time around and, as I've said before, you guys are just straight up good at putting mixtapes together. Huzzah for the tipper!

I'll try to be around tonight for the results thread, but if we get swept by fucking Brandon Wood I might be out in a gutter somewhere using a box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch as a pillow.
 
Back
Top Bottom