If Music Could Talk

revbob wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 4:45pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 2:03pm

Keep on truckin', keep on votin'.

Ok hippie.

Be cool, dig?

Okay, I'm liking where this is going. With apologies to YYYs in particular, I'm voting with my head (Pretenders) and my heart (Interrupters), whomst I both love even if neither are my faves from their respective catalogs. They're still both quite great songs.

Must say that I'm surprised by the lack of support for "Y Control." I thought Hoy had picked one that would go to the next round.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:22pm

Must say that I'm surprised by the lack of support for "Y Control." I thought Hoy had picked one that would go to the next round.

Yeah, I thought it would do better too but here we see the cracks in the system. I voted Interrupters only as a strategy this time. I presumed the other would get more than one vote. This album desperately to kick it up a level.

revbob wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:27pm

Yeah, I thought it would do better too but here we see the cracks in the system. I voted Interrupters only as a strategy this time. I presumed the other would get more than one vote. This album desperately to kick it up a level.

I think some people (including me on this side of round 1) are doing some tactical voting and/or rewarding the artist for coming up several times and not making it further as of yet. Probably hurts songs that aren't heralded classics or artists that haven't been put forth a few times already.

Flex wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:31pm

revbob wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:27pm

Yeah, I thought it would do better too but here we see the cracks in the system. I voted Interrupters only as a strategy this time. I presumed the other would get more than one vote. This album desperately to kick it up a level.

I think some people (including me on this side of round 1) are doing some tactical voting and/or rewarding the artist for coming up several times and not making it further as of yet. Probably hurts songs that aren't heralded classics or artists that haven't been put forth a few times already.

There's something to be said, perhaps, for letting people vote for as many as they want in the initial round. Let people vote their hearts initially before being cruel later on.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:33pm

There's something to be said, perhaps, for letting people vote for as many as they want in the initial round. Let people vote their hearts initially before being cruel later on.

That, or single vote and eliminating lowest vote getters only and having more rounds (I'm for sure definitely not actually advocating that since it would be inordinate amounts of work for you and these poll runs are already quite insane as I know myself), so people know they can vote a personal fave and still go tactical or whatever later.

There are limitations to any system of voting, which is why I favor the elimination of the IMCT state and its replacement by a decentralized conglomeration of politburos which channel the will of the people into concrete track selection.

Addendum: I learned partway through, especially after early un-tactical voting simply for faves or new songs that captured my imagination, that in each round you're really only going to be dealing with a small handful of songs that have any chance of making it through multiple rounds - generally but not always stuff that's had a bit of commercial success, and generally but not always stuff that's been canonized as a respectable classic - so at that point you can either "waste" a vote on a personal song you love but isn't going to garner more than a few votes at best or you can assess what the likeliest vote getters are as these rounds consolidate and work to plump up the songs you most prefer within that subset and/or work to block songs you think will go far but personally dislike. I sort of dropped that tactical voting last round and was quite annoyed at where we almost ended up save for a technical disqualification! So that taught me to make sure I'm always voting first with an eye to blocking songs I don't want to see win.

Flex wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:37pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:33pm

There's something to be said, perhaps, for letting people vote for as many as they want in the initial round. Let people vote their hearts initially before being cruel later on.

That, or single vote and eliminating lowest vote getters only and having more rounds (I'm for sure definitely not actually advocating that since it would be inordinate amounts of work for you and these poll runs are already quite insane as I know myself), so people know they can vote a personal fave and still go tactical or whatever later.

Yeah, the problem with more rounds of voting, I suspect, is voter fatigue. Anything more than three is likely a mistake.

There are limitations to any system of voting, which is why I favor the elimination of the IMCT state and its replacement by a decentralized conglomeration of politburos which channel the will of the people into concrete track selection.

Can't spell Bolshevik without the v in Dave Matthews.

Addendum: I learned partway through, especially after early un-tactical voting simply for faves or new songs that captured my imagination, that in each round you're really only going to be dealing with a small handful of songs that have any chance of making it through multiple rounds - generally but not always stuff that's had a bit of commercial success, and generally but not always stuff that's been canonized as a respectable classic - so at that point you can either "waste" a vote on a personal song you love but isn't going to garner more than a few votes at best or you can assess what the likeliest vote getters are as these rounds consolidate and work to plump up the songs you most prefer within that subset and/or work to block songs you think will go far but personally dislike. I sort of dropped that tactical voting last round and was quite annoyed at where we almost ended up save for a technical disqualification! So that taught me to make sure I'm always voting first with an eye to blocking songs I don't want to see win.

Here and in life, I've never cottoned to tactical voting (I've done it once in a real election and felt shitty afterwards). Vote my heart and curse the morons who lack my discernment.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:50pm

Flex wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:37pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:33pm

There's something to be said, perhaps, for letting people vote for as many as they want in the initial round. Let people vote their hearts initially before being cruel later on.

That, or single vote and eliminating lowest vote getters only and having more rounds (I'm for sure definitely not actually advocating that since it would be inordinate amounts of work for you and these poll runs are already quite insane as I know myself), so people know they can vote a personal fave and still go tactical or whatever later.

Yeah, the problem with more rounds of voting, I suspect, is voter fatigue. Anything more than three is likely a mistake.

There are limitations to any system of voting, which is why I favor the elimination of the IMCT state and its replacement by a decentralized conglomeration of politburos which channel the will of the people into concrete track selection.

Can't spell Bolshevik without the v in Dave Matthews.

Addendum: I learned partway through, especially after early un-tactical voting simply for faves or new songs that captured my imagination, that in each round you're really only going to be dealing with a small handful of songs that have any chance of making it through multiple rounds - generally but not always stuff that's had a bit of commercial success, and generally but not always stuff that's been canonized as a respectable classic - so at that point you can either "waste" a vote on a personal song you love but isn't going to garner more than a few votes at best or you can assess what the likeliest vote getters are as these rounds consolidate and work to plump up the songs you most prefer within that subset and/or work to block songs you think will go far but personally dislike. I sort of dropped that tactical voting last round and was quite annoyed at where we almost ended up save for a technical disqualification! So that taught me to make sure I'm always voting first with an eye to blocking songs I don't want to see win.

Here and in life, I've never cottoned to tactical voting (I've done it once in a real election and felt shitty afterwards). Vote my heart and curse the morons who lack my discernment.

That last bit is me. I just vote for the songs I like the most.

Heston wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:53pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:50pm

Here and in life, I've never cottoned to tactical voting (I've done it once in a real election and felt shitty afterwards). Vote my heart and curse the morons who lack my discernment.

That last bit is me. I just vote for the songs I like the most.

The difference is that your choices are more likely to have wider appeal.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 7:06pm

The difference is that your choices are more likely to have wider appeal.

Heston's taste does tend to line up with folks' compromise picks.

This is where things get sticky. If we were eliminating songs one by one, would more folks be willing to try something more obscure/unusual in the middle rounds? Right now, you see a little less than half the board gravitate immediately to the top 40/canonized classic picks, leaving the remaining votes to be split with the more adventurous stuff. With intermediate rounds, would the adventurous minded tend to go straight back to the top 40 material or would they consolidate behind some oddball picks? Hard to say, but I suspect the latter may occur under different structural circumstances. Instead, we have everyone "voting their heart" and it lets the "lowest common denominator" stuff just slide through and eliminate any alternatives after a round.

Flex wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 7:15pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 7:06pm

The difference is that your choices are more likely to have wider appeal.

Heston's taste does tend to line up with folks' compromise picks.

This is where things get sticky. If we were eliminating songs one by one, would more folks be willing to try something more obscure/unusual in the middle rounds? Right now, you see a little less than half the board gravitate immediately to the top 40/canonized classic picks, leaving the remaining votes to be split with the more adventurous stuff. With intermediate rounds, would the adventurous minded tend to go straight back to the top 40 material or would they consolidate behind some oddball picks? Hard to say, but I suspect the latter may occur under different structural circumstances. Instead, we have everyone "voting their heart" and it lets the "lowest common denominator" stuff just slide through and eliminate any alternatives after a round.

I guess what you're asking is how do you set up a system that encourages exploration of unusual songs rather than the comfortable and well known. Spoken like someone operating on the left in the American context!

At least in real-world politics you can speak to people about why the mainstream candidate doesn't actually benefit an individual voter, but these kinds of votes, where the stakes are infinitely lower, are ironically more given to conservative responses (i.e., what is already known). There's just no payoff to being adventurous or radical unless your desire is just to be hostile to the mainstream (e.g., el revbob). So you can set up any number of structures, but unless you can generate incentives to consider the non-conservative choice, it won't fly.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 7:42pm

Flex wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 7:15pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 7:06pm

The difference is that your choices are more likely to have wider appeal.

Heston's taste does tend to line up with folks' compromise picks.

This is where things get sticky. If we were eliminating songs one by one, would more folks be willing to try something more obscure/unusual in the middle rounds? Right now, you see a little less than half the board gravitate immediately to the top 40/canonized classic picks, leaving the remaining votes to be split with the more adventurous stuff. With intermediate rounds, would the adventurous minded tend to go straight back to the top 40 material or would they consolidate behind some oddball picks? Hard to say, but I suspect the latter may occur under different structural circumstances. Instead, we have everyone "voting their heart" and it lets the "lowest common denominator" stuff just slide through and eliminate any alternatives after a round.

I guess what you're asking is how do you set up a system that encourages exploration of unusual songs rather than the comfortable and well known. Spoken like someone operating on the left in the American context!

At least in real-world politics you can speak to people about why the mainstream candidate doesn't actually benefit an individual voter, but these kinds of votes, where the stakes are infinitely lower, are ironically more given to conservative responses (i.e., what is already known). There's just no payoff to being adventurous or radical unless your desire is just to be hostile to the mainstream (e.g., el revbob). So you can set up any number of structures, but unless you can generate incentives to consider the non-conservative choice, it won't fly.

Hey!!!
You don't get me at all...sell out!

revbob wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 8:01pm

Hey!!!
You don't get me at all...sell out!

Not just for Flexes anymore.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

02 Sep 2020, 6:22pm

Must say that I'm surprised by the lack of support for "Y Control." I thought Hoy had picked one that would go to the next round.

2 votes for my picks is what I expect. Anything more is a pleasant surprise. So par for the course for this one. It's a great, energetic, dirty art punk track, but whatever. I was hoping to add Maps, but that didn't happen and that should have gone far, but it probably wouldn't have.