Halloween Contest Off-Topic Thread 2

[Learin]

Yep. That's proof of gaming too.

Counter any accusations of cheating, and it's proof of cheating.

Show up for your favorite contest of the year? Cheating.

Respond? Cheating. Enter a contest? Cheating. Enter late? Cheating. Don't enter? Cheating. Comment on story? Cheating. Don't comment? You must be anonymous... and creating. Don't post a story? Oh now they've caught on to us knowing they are cheating, so they are laying low... and cheating.

Laughing so hard at this one.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I don't read every thread. If you see personal attacks, report them.

I adjusted your Karma score to 4.49, not too cool, not so hot.

 

[Devilius]

Nobody gives a shit.

 

[sr71plt]

Nobody gives a shit.

I'd ask "about what?" but I'm afraid the answer would be "about anything."

 

[Carnal_Flower]

so what?

For every "last minute" that wins, there's a first minute and a middle minute that wins. Not an advantage; doesn't add up.

Dark whats his name has shown us the stats: there is no statistical proof that more "last minute" have won than any other; if anything, ones posted in the middle of the contest "slightly" outweigh any others. So, not an advantage.

Furthermore, for every "last minute" that wins, there are three or four or five other last day or last minute that do not. Conclusion: it's not the only variable.

More facts: the three or four that were won by "that person" also came with huge numbers of votes, views and comments--more so in one day than other stories got that had been up for weeks. All it took was 24 hours. Conclusion: there's abundant proof that people loved the stories. Submitting "last minute" is not the only variable.

More facts: the "person" in some cases also posted at time 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 more stories "last minute." Not all of those did well. Not all of them got "Hot" even. Conclusion: posting time is not an advantage, quality and popularity of story is.

More facts: your argument that "limiting the 1-bombs" accounts for the high score still assumes a raw high score. Where did that come from?

I guess people can make their own conclusions at this point.

There's the cabal of less than 20 authors coming up with hundreds and hundreds of countable votes and fabricating scores of faked comments (i.e. the dead voter rolls) if you need that.

There's the notion that the author went to the "How To" section.

Or, you can look at all the other combined factors like the ones I just stated, plus the prestige and popularity of the author, plus read the damn story yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Conclusion: this whole argument is Scouries level inanity and anyone who continues to put it forth is delusional.

I'm sorry but I disagree unless you have numbers to back it up. I know of at least four and possible one more that have been won from last minute entries this year alone.

 

[TxRad]

That was fun.

Now for the number one question. Why put the story in the wrong category. A lower vote category at that? And why put the squig factor in the middle of it?

Answer those and you will have all of the parts of the winning formula covered.

 

[SecondCircle]

For one, no one knows the answer to "why". Thus, any answers given by third parties are assumptions.

Assumptions are not facts.

First, I was hopping internet cafes in search of adequate wifi to login to my 30 alts to vote.

Then, I was voting 2's and 3's on stories because I knew they weren't swept.

Then, I was voting once anon, then once username.

Care to tell me... what is it I am doing now?

It would seem most know better my actions than even I.

 

[Arngrim]

Nice use of irony, talking about misdirection while posting under an alt. That's classic.

Let's see, you say you're a reader and have been here since May 2015 and here is your favorites page.

https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=2585511&page=favorites

Reading for over a year and a half with no favorite stories or authors. No answer to any of the bio questions other than over 18.

That says "Username created simply for alting purposes' to me.

For a bonus, 'you' were created in May of last year, right around the time the shit it the fan about the 'voting block'. narrows things down quite a bit for those who pay attention.

Misdirecting again? It's interesting to see how you've glossed over every single one of my points. Wait, that's right -- you don't give a fuck. Yet, for some reason, you're still here posting.

Alt or not, it doesn't negate what I've said.

As I've suggested in my first post, you've no legs to stand on. Like a two legged dog, I surmise. No one is leaving you hanging out to dry. You do that yourself. One doesn't need to have been here since the Selena Kitt debacle to see what you're really playing at.

So I ask you, one more time, if you have a shred of decency, to stay out of the support threads. Your gaming is on par with Scouries. Instead of trying to steal stories through fake contests, you're driving more and more new writers away while simultaneously win-shaming those who place. Keep your poison out of what is supposed to be friendly and supportive.

This is the last time I'm posting about this. I will leave you with a parting gift though. It is something for you to read. It explains why the whole of all of your accusations have no weight:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I'm sure I'll be seeing you next year.

 

[sr71plt]

Well a lot of folks are still here posting and putting a lot of energy to the issue--including ones who aren't entering the contests--at least under the names that they are posting to this thread in. That's fun.

 

[SecondCircle]

Aye. Ones who would have posted. Perhaps--but that's worth an em dash--wouldn't ya say?

 

[sr71plt]

Shrug. I see more enjoyment of chewing on each other going on now than much of any real interest in the contests. And, again, a lot of it by people who don't appear to have any stake in the contests (and some who have a memory that goes way earlier than their purported join date).

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Here's a deal: you answer the problems presented in my previous post, and I'll take on these imaginary issues next.

That was fun.

Now for the number one question. Why put the story in the wrong category. A lower vote category at that? And why put the squig factor in the middle of it?

Answer those and you will have all of the parts of the winning formula covered.

 

[sr71plt]

Bitch, bitch, bitch. Got you on ignore, so I don't know what you are bitching about, CF. But I know you're bitching about something or someone.

 

[Darkniciad]

How does that wash with the "Get your cabal to vote and comment on it early to boost viewership" part of this "winning formula"?

Trick people into viewing the story, and then trick them into leaving it?

Put it in a low-read category, but do everything in your power to get people to read it by stacking the deck early?

It doesn't make a lick of sense.

In addition, the one time I've looked at a specific allegation of "putting a squick" in there, I saw nothing out of step with the rest of the author's non-contest work.

That was fun.

Now for the number one question. Why put the story in the wrong category. A lower vote category at that? And why put the squig factor in the middle of it?

Answer those and you will have all of the parts of the winning formula covered.

 

[Arngrim]

Shrug. I see more enjoyment of chewing on each other going on now than much of any real interest in the contests. And, again, a lot of it by people who don't appear to have any stake in the contests (and some who have a memory that goes way earlier than their purported join date).

Good eye, my friend.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The thing about conspiracy theorists is they are always looking for things aren't necessarily there. It's never about proving a point. It's always about proving they are right. They word their arguments carefully to put the opposing side into a "trap" where they have an answer for any response. They also word things carefully so they can back-peddle, like, say, calling someone out for something to put a target on their head without directly calling them out for it. "I didn't say that! I only dropped a name..."

At the same time, the hypocrisy continues. Point out statistical facts countering the argument and that's not good enough because "we know the formula, put it to the test, and know the results." Well if that's the case, show us the money!

I think you said it best and put an iron-clad end to any and all of these allegations:

"You can't win a contest if your story is a piece of crap."

'Tis the season of the witch... hunt.

If all things were equal scores should by normally distributed, not skewed at the ends of the distribution. Skews imply quality or crap. When crap stories rank high or good stories rank low, conspiracy is loose. The stats tell the story.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Freak

Bitch, bitch, bitch. Got you on ignore, so I don't know what you are bitching about, CF. But I know you're bitching about something or someone.

 

[oggbashan]

If all things were equal scores should by normally distributed, not skewed at the ends of the distribution. Skews imply quality or crap. When crap stories rank high or good stories rank low, conspiracy is loose. The stats tell the story.

That assumes that the scoring system of 1 to 5 is normal too - a 3 vote for an average story, a 4 for good, and a 5 for exceptionally good.

The scoring system ISN'T normal, so normal distribution doesn't apply to the ratings either.

 

[NicoleZ]

That assumes that the scoring system of 1 to 5 is normal too - a 3 vote for an average story, a 4 for good, and a 5 for exceptionally good.

The scoring system ISN'T normal, so normal distribution doesn't apply to the ratings either.

It doesn't matter what we call it or how we try to redefine it, Oggbashan. 1 - 5, (F)E - A or clad in shroud of well-sounding words, basic behaviourism tells us that it has been ingrained in us since we were six or seven. The lowest does mean that it's rotten, the highest that it's excellent and that in the middle is average and no more.

 

[lovecraft68]

What I'd like to see-and I wonder if its worth starting a thread and trying to convince Laurel- is one contest, just one, as a test where anonymous votes are disabled.

Comments we could leave as the site gives us the ability to delete them if we choose.

Anon trolls simply need to keep refreshing their IP which there is a way to do. Meaning one person can drop multiple bombs. But if you can only vote with a user ID you have to have alts to drop bombs. Some do have them, but do they have that many and are they willing to take time to create more just to bomb?

Disabling anon would do two things. First, obviously the scores would be better throughout, second the sweeps would be less invasive as there are less dubious votes to remove.

The sweeps are imperfect and many times will suck away good votes with bad if they're in the same 'neighborhood' IP address wise. So to rely on them less would be a good thing for all involved.

If enough of us suggest it, maybe she would entertain the idea. I think if we did it once the results would be well worth it.

 

[lovecraft68]

For one, no one knows the answer to "why". Thus, any answers given by third parties are assumptions.

Assumptions are not facts.

First, I was hopping internet cafes in search of adequate wifi to login to my 30 alts to vote.

Then, I was voting 2's and 3's on stories because I knew they weren't swept.

Then, I was voting once anon, then once username.

Care to tell me... what is it I am doing now?

It would seem most know better my actions than even I.

Here's something interesting about your remark. We know you're being sarcastic, but if someone said look, he's doing all those things, others would be like "oh, come on, why would someone do that?"

Okay fine, why would they?

But here's the thing. Scouries. Scouries and Freddie. Those two? They do everything you just said and more and it is beyond dispute-with no more or less proof by the way for the most part- the difference?

We are told to believe it. From the second people would come on this site back when I first started we were told these two boogeymen are responsible for everything and it is so! Why? Because all the old timers say so!

Point is some of the same people who so stubbornly refuse to believe anything is amiss here or so and so is doing XYZ are the same people trying to tell us who is responsible for pretty much everything strange that goes on in these things.

Built in fall guys so nothing else ever has to be addressed.

Scouries is the Satan of Literotica and he and only he has ever done anything to manipulate anything here. And we have to believe that, and that no one else every would do anything else, ever.

 

[lovecraft68]

Here's a question, an exercise if you will.

For anyone reading this that has written in one category often-for instance Pilot in GM, me in incest-do you or do you not know the readership and what they like and don't like?

Of course you do. You know what makes them go "Ohhh" and "Ugh!" you know what earns that impulse five because you made them happy and the fuck you one bomb because you had the nerve to use a device not popular.

I can write two incest stories, one in a way that I know will be a 4.75 or so and one that won't see a red H. All I need to do is put something realistic in it, something ugly, an abusive father, drug addiction...whatever. I will get lower votes because of it.

A happy happy mom son romance or Sibs whatever? High scores.

Its easy its simple, I think we can all agree we learn the readership as we go.

So why is it so hard to believe people can play their stories in a manner to get a lot of knee jerk bombs and play the sweeps like a violin? Because the sweeps are an issue all their own. They cut way the hell too deep these days and people have figured that out.

 

[oggbashan]

It doesn't matter what we call it or how we try to redefine it, Oggbashan. 1 - 5, (F)E - A or clad in shroud of well-sounding words, basic behaviourism tells us that it has been ingrained in us since we were six or seven. The lowest does mean that it's rotten, the highest that it's excellent and that in the middle is average and no more.

You are right in an ordinary voting system but with the Red H set at 4.50 Literotica's voting pattern isn't ordinary.

Only votes of 4 or 5 are valid. Anything below 4 has a disproportionate impact on the likelihood of a story having or retaining a Red H.

I can understand newbies expecting that any vote from 1 to 5 is reasonable but that is NOT the situation. If the Red H was set at say 3.10 or maybe 3.50 then all votes from 1 to 5 would have equal impact. At 4.50? A vote of 3 cancels two votes of 5. A 2 vote cancels three votes of 5. A 1 vote cancels 4 votes of 5.

Examples:

5+4/2 = 4.5
5+5+4+4/4 = 4.5
5+5+3/3 = 4.33
5+5+5+2/4 = 4.25
5+5+5+1/4 = 4.00

Ten votes of 5/10 = 5.00
Ten votes of 5 followed by a vote of 1 = 51/11 = 4.64
Ten votes of 5 followed by TWO votes of 1 = 52/12 = 4.33

 

[NicoleZ]

You are absolutely correct Oggbashan, and everyone who has ever posted a story would most likely agree that you are when you spell it out like you just did. But does the anonymous reader who comes on here just to satisfy his (and sometime hers, I admit) craving for porn know this?

 

[oggbashan]

You are absolutely correct Oggbashan, and everyone who has ever posted a story would most likely agree that you are when you spell it out like you just did. But does the anonymous reader who comes on here just to satisfy his (and sometime hers, I admit) craving for porn know this?

No. They don't and could reasonably assume that by voting a 3 they are saying "OK. That story was reasonable but not for me.".

Not all votes of 1, 2 or 3 are malicious. They could just be from someone assuming a 1-5 scale has equal weight throughout.