Retiering the Classes: Bard, Factotum, Jester, and Savant

[eggynack]

2) If a single character can solve lots of problems, that is already reflected in the SGT, because they get to solve all the problems they can solve. The only "advantage" to having four members of the class facing encounter levels 4 higher, is that classes like the Sorcerer, where your ability to make 4 different characters, an ability which is literally useless to you as a player making a single PC, now becomes a benefit.

This is the issue I explicitly pointed out, yes. I don't know why you're being combative about this.

[Grod_The_Giant]

1) Tier 3 classes will probably get stomped by higher CR opposition, since they pretty much universally aren't even level appropriate in the first place, and higher CRs pose all kinds of problems, like requiring spells the PCs don't even have, or just RNG breaking, so I doubt they will be solving many problems.

That's not the most useful metric, because "how well can I stomp a higher CR opponent" is pretty much entirely a question of how optimized a build is-- I think most people posting in this thread could make a Warrior that can one-shot a higher-CR monster and a Wizard that would lose to one. I've certainly run Tier 3ish parties at mid-op levels and routinely had to throw >ECL encounters at them to create the correct challenge.

2) If a single character can solve lots of problems, that is already reflected in the SGT, because they get to solve all the problems they can solve. The only "advantage" to having four members of the class facing encounter levels 4 higher, is that classes like the Sorcerer, where your ability to make 4 different characters, an ability which is literally useless to you as a player making a single PC, now becomes a benefit.

It's the same fake versatility that put the Sorcerer above the Beguiler in JaronK's Tiers even though the Beguiler is objectively better, "If I had been a completely different character, I would have completely different abilities (but the same class name) so I'm more versatile than you, because if you were a completely different character, you would have completely different abilities (but the same class name)."

I am with you that "four of the same character" isn't a very representative metric, but it sounded like you were attacking the result's validity rather than the test's. If that's the case, I apologize.

[bean illus]

Wow 85% of the classes scored the same 100% rating. I guess that means that they are all equal, and not that our testing metric is flawed!

No, it means that slightly more than three/fifths of the classes are low T-3 or higher, and that some folks exaggerate.

Isn't that sort of the point? These classes are at least Tier 3, because they have the tools to handle all sorts of problems.

That is my general point T1-2 of course could likely increase CR, T4-5etc would likely have trouble. T-3 would handle most challenges, but

This isn't actually the model we're using, but you are incorrect about its plausible usefulness. We wouldn't just be arbitrarily varying CR. Theoretically, every four of same class party would start off against some set of equal CR encounters. We then gauge their ability to handle those encounters, perhaps by way of the percent that manages to succeed at all perhaps with some daily resource loss included. Classes that do sufficiently well would get bumped up a CR, and run the test again in that bracket. Classes that do sufficiently poorly get bumped down a CR. This model would continue that process until each party does "normally" against their encounters. That could be going by percent success, or it could be going by some resource depletion threshold, or both, or whatever. That same threshold would act as the bumping up or down factor, incidentally. When the parties all do normally, we see what CR they ended up at, and that is our end numerical result for that class at that level at that optimization level.

It's pretty similar to the core model of the thread, except with four of the same class instead of one character going alone or one character of the class with three arbitrary rubes, and with the rules underlying how we assess what a challenge is more systematized. Of course, we'd have to have something for non-combat challenges as well, because that's explicitly part of our system, but that's how this would work in a combat sense.

Thank you.

That's not the most useful metric, because "how well can I stomp a higher CR opponent" is pretty much entirely a question of how optimized a build is-- I think most people posting in this thread could make a Warrior that can one-shot a higher-CR monster and a Wizard that would lose to one. I've certainly run Tier 3ish parties at mid-op levels and routinely had to throw >ECL encounters at them to create the correct challenge.

I am with you that "four of the same character" isn't a very representative metric, but it sounded like you were attacking the result's validity rather than the test's. If that's the case, I apologize.

I want y'all to know, i don't think of the 4 of a kind model as my only metric, but it does float in the back of my mind for T3

[Fizban]

On keeping the argument flame alive, if your goal is indeed to highlight this stuff, then Ryu is correct that your original statement of intent, to remove the gloating or whatever, was somewhat inaccurate.

As usual, both? I wouldn't have been posting if you hadn't implied support of him by removing Beheld's vote, and turning the conversation to that point also serves to squelch his momentum. Without the vote issue I'd have just let them burn themselves out, but once ryu got you involved the issue became larger.

Pretty sure that was the argument which I eventually threw up my hands and removed myself from, which is a bad (good?) sign for anyone's position on this non-existent meta-ranking system.

Pretty sure we both threw up our hands, as I haven't seriously caught up on the base thread since. Though I can't be sure which part you're saying you threw up your hands at, neither of us seem interested in reopening it.

Might seem biased that the folks I suggest hold this position are on the opposite side from Ryu, but it's pretty accurate as well, I think. It's based on stuff that predates this whole issue.

It does seem pretty biased to me, yes. You blamed Beheld for attacking your voting system when it's clear that ryu brought up the votes in the first place, even though you agree he's been arguing in bad faith. He gets a pass because of his optimization ability even though he's just sniping at people to rile them up? Because you agree with his position? That's pretty wack. Not saying Beheld is going about it right, or that I'm squeaky clean myself, but the usual negative connotation of the word "disruptive" implies that ryu's. . . stuff up there, is more valuable.

[eggynack]

As usual, both? I wouldn't have been posting if you hadn't implied support of him by removing Beheld's vote, and turning the conversation to that point also serves to squelch his momentum. Without the vote issue I'd have just let them burn themselves out, but once ryu got you involved the issue became larger.

Not sure why I have to keep clarifying this. My removal of that vote had nothing to do with Ryu. If that exact voting post had existed in a vacuum (though perhaps not a vacuum in the sense that my awareness of Beheld's claimed stance on bards was possibly important in determining the purpose of the vote), I would have still not included it. This wasn't a move in support of Ryu, or against Ryu. Ryu did not get me involved. I got involved because I would necessarily have to get involved in that vote post, because it was a vote post, and I always have to do something with those, whether it's inclusion or explicit non-inclusion. In this case, it was the latter, again, because of the specific nature of that post. Had Ryu not said anything about it, I still would have ultimately not included the vote, because I came to the conclusion that such votes are poison to the statistics I'm putting together, even when the big tier number is unchanged.

I have opinions of Ryu in a variety of contexts (as an optimizer, through his more general posts, as a voter, and so on and so forth), and when explicitly asked I sometimes share those opinions, which may in fact be more positive than yours. This opinion had no bearing on my decision. Completely separate from anything going on in this thread, voting or otherwise, I happen to think he'd be capable of doing this thing. So I said so. If I thought he would utterly fail, I would have still ruled against this vote's inclusion.

Pretty sure we both threw up our hands, as I haven't seriously caught up on the base thread since. Though I can't be sure which part you're saying you threw up your hands at, neither of us seem interested in reopening it.

Thought I said at some point that I just wasn't going to continue talking about the issue in explicit fashion. Might be that you did the same thing in less explicit fashion.

It does seem pretty biased to me, yes. You blamed Beheld for attacking your voting system when it's clear that ryu brought up the votes in the first place, even though you agree he's been arguing in bad faith.

As I pointed out, he wasn't really trying to force people to change their votes. He just didn't want to spend a lot of time arguing about bards with someone that agrees with him about bards. I don't necessarily agree with the way the specific set of interactions went, but he wasn't doing harm to my voting system with his actions. Beheld was. Arguing in bad faith hurts the argument, which isn't the best, but voting in bad faith hurts my beautiful beautiful spreadsheet, with all its possibilities for data analysis and potential as the basis for a more numerically oriented tier system. And that sucks. Turning away that Beheld vote wasn't something I view as a punishment. I view it as protecting the data, first and foremost, because if everyone thinks bards are exactly tier three, or if it's all tier three with the occasional tier two, or if there actually is the occasional four, then I want that precise truth, and no other truth related to thread arguments, hanging out in my data.

He gets a pass because of his optimization ability even though he's just sniping at people to rile them up?Because you agree with his position?

What pass? The pass on my disruptiveness opinion? That stance was predicated not strictly on this thread, but on the various arguments that have gone on in various threads. Moreover, that disruptiveness opinion has pretty limited bearing on anything that goes on. You're still very much allowed to post and vote here. So are Ryu and Beheld. All I was trying to point out is that, if I were somehow trying to disinclude more disruptive voices from the conversation to make it a more peaceful place, Ryu would not be anywhere near the top of my list.

I don't really want to disinclude those voices though. Disruptive people disrupt things. Sometimes they disrupt things I like, and sometimes they disrupt things you like, but either way they cause conversation to go down roads we wouldn't necessarily expect. I obviously don't love it when the disrupted things are the ones I like, but I still value the disruption.

That's pretty wack. Not saying Beheld is going about it right, or that I'm squeaky clean myself, but the usual negative connotation of the word "disruptive" implies that ryu's. . . stuff up there, is more valuable.

But, like, just talking about you here, you've been involved in this thing just now, and also a buncha stuff in the wizard thread, and also a buncha stuff in the home base thread, and probably some stuff in yet another thread that I'm forgetting. It's not all about this weird issue.

[ryu]

Precisely because I will never even for a moment allow myself to cast a vote that doesn't align with my views. To allow your vote to be corrupt for any reason is to lesson its power even if Eggy leaves it up. This is because once you give someone the power to control or manipulate your vote you've given them some measure of your power. In all forms of discussion, voting, and similar the path to power is to say precisely mean and mean precisely what you say. That's step one. Step two is packaging your argument in such a way that it's persuasive. That's what got the majority to move up beguilers and dread necros. Take that into consideration whenever you're in an argument with me or anyone else. There's a good chance that if you can examine what you're saying and realize you're being lead you're being set up to lose.

[weckar]

Guys! It's been nearly two pages! Can we all agree we hate each other and make up?

[eggynack]

Guys! It's been nearly two pages! Can we all agree we hate each other and make up?

Sure. We gonna be starting up the next thread in like eight hours anyway.

[weckar]

I thought threads stayed open for voting indefinitely?

Also, will you ever be releasing the full vote tally, for the curious?

[eggynack]

I thought threads stayed open for voting indefinitely?

They do. But new threads tend to attract attention away from old ones. Good opportunity to start anew a bit, y'know?

Also, will you ever be releasing the full vote tally, for the curious?

Bottom of the first post of every thread has a link to the fancy spreadsheet I'm using. Has the votes of everyone, along with mean, median, mode, and the number of votes for each tier (excluding fractional tier votes). Not sure if you want something beyond that, but I dunno why stuff beyond that would be necessary.

[weckar]

Ah, sorry, missed that spreadsheet. I guess the only missing variable is order of votes/vote time, to see if there is a changing trend due to discussions and the like. But that would be a ton more bookkeeping. Awesome for stats geekery though.

[eggynack]

Ah, sorry, missed that spreadsheet. I guess the only missing variable is order of votes/vote time, to see if there is a changing trend due to discussions and the like. But that would be a ton more bookkeeping. Awesome for stats geekery though.

Yeah, seems like a pretty difficult thing to add, both in terms of time to add, and space on sheet. The sheet's actually become one of my favorite things about the move from the community tiering thread. It makes keeping track of votes a rather trivial and constant thing, the increase in transparency means that people know exactly what I'm adding such that they can either dispute a vote's credibility or note the lack of presence of a given vote if I didn't know how or whether to include it for whatever reason, people get to broadly know how far a class' tier is from switching, and I get to do various stat stuff, both now and in more detail when the project is over. Even lets me do weird stuff like Troacctid's fighter vote, which is whatever keeps the score at 4.5 (which kept the score there for a surprising amount of time). Could never do stuff like that if I were tiering the Jormengand way.

[Beheld]

That's not the most useful metric, because "how well can I stomp a higher CR opponent" is pretty much entirely a question of how optimized a build is-- I think most people posting in this thread could make a Warrior that can one-shot a higher-CR monster and a Wizard that would lose to one. I've certainly run Tier 3ish parties at mid-op levels and routinely had to throw >ECL encounters at them to create the correct challenge.

1) That's... my point? How well they can handle higher CR is as function of luck and monster chosen more than anything. So any test that requires that as a balance point create a measurement difference is going to fail in an exceedingly predictable way.

2) I have never run a 3.5 party in which I had to use CR > ECL to present a challenge ever. Because the only things that do that are dumb RNG breaking (Power attack multipliers, arcane thesis stacking free metamagics, Tainted Casting), dumb spells per day breaking (free Persists/Plane shift to a timeless Plane), and Minionmancy. And I don't have fun playing or DMing any of that. And since a party that doesn't use those things can be challenged by CR = ECL regardless of optimization (except if they are deliberately anti-optimized) that's not a problem that I have ever had.

[Fizban]

Not sure why I have to keep clarifying this. My removal of that vote had nothing to do with Ryu.

He brought up the votes as justification for breaking off the argument with Beheld. Beheld made a straw vote to cut him off. You responded, and then ryu claimed that was his plan all along. He got you involved.

This wasn't a move in support of Ryu, or against Ryu.

To you, sure. To an outsider with no context other than "this guy's saying the other guy's wrong and the OP just threw out the other guy's vote?" That's why I said you should have kept it under your hat for a minute and presented it differently, because appearances matter. You tried to remain impartial and refuted the claim that he had anything to do with it, but the damage was done. I expect someone will say that's a straw position, but this is the internet: anyone can be watching at any time in any context, and I can easily reflect from personal experience that it turns off potential participants.

Thought I said at some point that I just wasn't going to continue talking about the issue in explicit fashion. Might be that you did the same thing in less explicit fashion.

Less explicit by not returning.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the specific set of interactions went, but he wasn't doing harm to my voting system with his actions. Beheld was. Arguing in bad faith hurts the argument, which isn't the best, but voting in bad faith hurts my beautiful beautiful spreadsheet, with all its possibilities for data analysis and potential as the basis for a more numerically oriented tier system.

Which is something we'll probably have to disagree on, since I see arguing in bad faith as significantly more damaging to a discussion thread, which is the part where my participation actually counts knowing that as a minority my vote is just data which won't change the result. And that sucks.

I view it as protecting the data, first and foremost, because if everyone thinks bards are exactly tier three, or if it's all tier three with the occasional tier two, or if there actually is the occasional four, then I want that precise truth, and no other truth related to thread arguments, hanging out in my data.

Which is why I keep pointing out that you aren't just a record keeper, you're a de-facto leader, also that your voting pool is rather specific and I think you need more than just votes to make anything out of that data.

I don't really want to disinclude those voices though. Disruptive people disrupt things. Sometimes they disrupt things I like, and sometimes they disrupt things you like, but either way they cause conversation to go down roads we wouldn't necessarily expect. I obviously don't love it when the disrupted things are the ones I like, but I still value the disruption.

Sometimes a leader has to lead. Did ryu's sudden interest in arguing about wizards, again, in this thread, lead to an unexpected discussion? I could tell within a couple posts that it was not. I'd say the only truly unexpected discussion here is this one, though Beheld's wizard=level appropriate standard vs other tiers could have been interesting if it was cleaned up before it was diverted, by ryu wanting to argue about wizards.

But, like, just talking about you here, you've been involved in this thing just now, and also a buncha stuff in the wizard thread, and also a buncha stuff in the home base thread, and probably some stuff in yet another thread that I'm forgetting. It's not all about this weird issue.

You keep saying weird issue and all it does is make it unclear what you're talking about. I can speak plainly: I think many of ryu's posts, including those regarding this argument with Beheld, are void of merit and do nothing but drag down the threads they appear in. I find the idea that you rank me as more "disruptive" than him, when I'm trying to improve the thread rather than just yell "nuh uh wizards are best" (as I see it), insulting. Be it by presenting an alternative tier, discussing tier definitions, voting procedure, expectations of leadership, or people's behavior, I feel that my posts are sufficiently on topic and disruptive in a positive way, while his are often not. It seems probable that you disagree with my opinion of him, which is unsurprising given you share similar views and you're pretty thick skinned yourself, but it remains.

I do not expect an apology or condemnation, I'm just making it clear. I consider ryu one of the toxic posters who push away new posters and new ideas, as I have seen in past threads and in this one. You can remain impartial, but that means acknowledging that some people, such as myself, might decide it's not worth bothering with your threads. Which as I said above, you should care about, because your voting pool is already fairly small and fractured by missing votes, so losing potential votes is huge. Will you fill in all the votes for people that only voted in one thread but not others for analysis? Apply some sort of statistical normalization? What about for new players and people that just don't like tier threads who aren't represented by definition but obviously exist? What if I decide I've lost faith in the voting system and demand my votes be removed, do they stay because removing them would damage your data? What if I demand they be changed out of spite?

There are a lot of holes, is what I'm saying. Trying to be the all-impartial collector of golden data only takes you so far. All you had to do, ironically, was maintain that impartiality a bit harder and tell them both to take it to the wizard thread and sort out the votes later, and I'd have had nothing to say. But I didn't think you handled it the best way, so I spoke up, and you're also still here, involved in this thing. I think I have sufficiently explained my position by now, as have you. I dislike the phrase "agree to disagree," but as in previous arguments it is unlikely either of us is going to bend.

Guys! It's been nearly two pages! Can we all agree we hate each other and make up?

Sorry, I don't hate you, we can't make up. Unless I do hate you. Can't remember, too many fights, that means you're on the good list until I see reason to put coal in your stockings.

[eggynack]

Not going to respond to the other stuff, cause I really want to get off this stuff, but the following specifically seems to demand something of a response, in my opinion.

To you, sure. To an outsider with no context other than "this guy's saying the other guy's wrong and the OP just threw out the other guy's vote?" That's why I said you should have kept it under your hat for a minute and presented it differently, because appearances matter. You tried to remain impartial and refuted the claim that he had anything to do with it, but the damage was done. I expect someone will say that's a straw position, but this is the internet: anyone can be watching at any time in any context, and I can easily reflect from personal experience that it turns off potential participants.

You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way. My post where I initially said I'd keep them for the moment and then ditch them later, and finally said that I'd just be ditching them, happened within a two minute window where not much in the way of Ryu stuff popped up. I don't see anything I did as the least bit problematic. At least not in this form, where I was somehow convinced by Ryu pushing me into turning down the vote. Jeez, Ryu never even said the vote should be removed. That was all me.

[Beheld]

Give it up Fizban. Wizards are too good is too important a point to allow it to be compromised by being reasonable.

If only one person specifically posts about how his repeated defense of Ryu and support of Ryu in all positions he ever takes and repeated lies about what Ryu was arguing might possibly cause people to believe that he supports the person he defends and lies on behalf over the person he constantly **** talks, then it can't really be a problem. Wizard Uber Alles. If he can get the votes down to just him and Ryu he can have his dream of the perfect Tier system voted on by "the people."

[ryu]

Not going to respond to the other stuff, cause I really want to get off this stuff, but the following specifically seems to demand something of a response, in my opinion.


You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way. My post where I initially said I'd keep them for the moment and then ditch them later, and finally said that I'd just be ditching them, happened within a two minute window where not much in the way of Ryu stuff popped up. I don't see anything I did as the least bit problematic. At least not in this form, where I was somehow convinced by Ryu pushing me into turning down the vote. Jeez, Ryu never even said the vote should be removed. That was all me.

Indeed. The best plans require convincing the smallest number of people of the smallest number of things possible. I didn't have to collaborate with you at all, because I know your character to a decent extent. I KNOW that you'd never stomach someone deliberately messing with your data. I just didn't have a specific prediction of just how far you'd go in response. If it makes you feel any better this was on the far mild side of reasonable reaction extrapolations.

[Fizban]

You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way.

Think more like a politician. Alternatively think more like a rube. Or, ya'know, Ryu, who took that post and used it to fuel the phrase "now they're not even paying attention to your votes," like it was a victory.

As for the lack of indication from other posters: we've got me, and oddly enough Cosi again in the "not directly agreeing but aimed at the same target," and any potential posters scared off by that exchange obviously aren't posting (which in principle, over time and multiple threads, are important).

My post where I initially said I'd keep them for the moment and then ditch them later, and finally said that I'd just be ditching them, happened within a two minute window where not much in the way of Ryu stuff popped up. I don't see anything I did as the least bit problematic.

Nothing you did was problematic, just not as effective as it could have been. As I told the sub-boss today, while his argument to my co-worker wasn't wrong, it was made without considering all the angles and would almost certainly not be viewed as impartial, probably undermining the point he was trying to make. The editing time doesn't matter, the thread remains. It also happens that your direct rebuttal (post #136) went up while I was composing my own, but as I believe it required more chastisement I probably would have posted something anyway. I think you're taking my criticism a bit more sharply than intended in this case.

Jeez, Ryu never even said the vote should be removed. That was all me.

It's called "spin," or so I've heard. You did something he could spin into something useful, despite how impartial you tried to make it. You didn't see it because you don't see it as a problem, hence my explaining why it's a problem.

Pre-edit: and uh, yeah. Right there again. Gloating about how he's manipulating people into arguing, using you as the backstop. And this is the guy you want to impartially keep around?

[Beheld]

And this is the guy you want to impartially keep around?

Not impartially keeping around, he's totally willing to lie about the thread to defend Ryu for backing out of his challenge.

[Fizban]

Mind you Beheld has still gone of the deep end, but as his advocate I'm not supposed to acknowledge that (shush you, wait until the trial's over).

[ryu]

Mind you Beheld has still gone of the deep end, but as his advocate I'm not supposed to acknowledge that (shush you, wait until the trial's over).

And even he acknowledges it and you know full well our opinions of each other Eggy.

[Beheld]

Mind you Beheld has still gone of the deep end, but as his advocate I'm not supposed to acknowledge that (shush you, wait until the trial's over).

Nah, eggy definitely lied to defend him.

Before it became important to pretend the conversation was about Bard's in order to defend Ryu from the obvious fact that he was arguing in bad faith by backing out of the challenge he proposed, after he saw that he can't actually manage it:

Attempting to get him to back up his claim is theoretically fine, though it might make more sense in the wizard thread.

After he realized that to defend Ryu from the obvious fact that he was arguing in bad faith, that he needed to pretend that it was really about Bards:

Pretty sure the wizard thing was originally a weird rhetoric outcropping of the bard argument. So, not really a non sequitur, as you're indicating. As far as I can tell, he was saying, "I was going to make this wizard argument to support bards being tier three, but it turns out you already think that, so I don't care."

Edit: Obviously that post isn't going to look like it's about bards when you remove the context, specifically your post that he quoted and the surrounding conversation of your post, that shows that it's about bards.

Keeping in mind of course, that in reality, that claim there is a blatant lie, and that actually going back and reading what Ryu actually said and quoted, that he never once said the word Bard, implied he was talking about the Bard class, mentioned even the concept of Tier 3, and that he spent literally 100% of his time talking about the Wizard, and that specifically, the post of mine that he quoted (and the surrounding conversation of like 8 straight posts) that was literally 100% about Wizards and 0% about Bards.

Now, he was only willing to dive down into lying about the thread contents after he had committed himself to defending Ryu to the death to prove that he was therefore completely in the right before.

But I don't much care the reason why he felt it necessary to lie in defense of Ryu, just that this is where we are at.

[eggynack]

Think more like a politician. Alternatively think more like a rube. Or, ya'know, Ryu, who took that post and used it to fuel the phrase "now they're not even paying attention to your votes," like it was a victory.

I tend to highly value the principle of glasnost, transparency, over turning things into this fight for image. That people know exactly what goes into my decisions, that I give full and honest responses, I think it's important, even in a thread I'm leading. It means that, when I say Ryu didn't have significant influence over my decision, I feel like you, and by extension the thread, can trust that position. Cause I say stuff I mean, and leave as little out as possible.

As for the lack of indication from other posters: we've got me, and oddly enough Cosi again in the "not directly agreeing but aimed at the same target," and any potential posters scared off by that exchange obviously aren't posting (which in principle, over time and multiple threads, are important).

I think Cosi actually took issue with me later saying that I thought Ryu could do the challenge if so inclined, rather than my vote removal. My response at the time is the same as my response now.

Nothing you did was problematic, just not as effective as it could have been. As I told the sub-boss today, while his argument to my co-worker wasn't wrong, it was made without considering all the angles and would almost certainly not be viewed as impartial, probably undermining the point he was trying to make.

I think it's notable here that my method might not have been as ineffective as you think. I consider it a necessity that I eventually tell Beheld that his vote isn't counted if it, in fact, isn't counted, so either I was going to say it then, or I was going to say it later. Your suggestion is that the later version would have lacked the need for editing, and so would have been superior. However, had I waited, Ryu and Beheld would have likely continued their back and forth, creating several posts between the vote in question and my response. Which would quite possibly mean a post where Ryu specifically said that the vote should be removed. Waiting, therefore, could have made me appear even more biased, because now I'm basing my stance on this Ryu/Beheld argument post-vote, rather than on my personal stance on the vote. Something to think about.

I think you're taking my criticism a bit more sharply than intended in this case.

Fair enough. I take this kinda thing seriously, y'know? As I noted above, I'm not really convinced that people besides you and Beheld think I'm biased on the basis of this vote removal, but this is one of those things where I have to be really frigging clear with people that I'm not biased, and that the level you have to be at where the vote will be removed is really high. It's why my original post was keeping the vote around despite its nature, because votes should count in the vast vast majority of cases. I can't be some kinda vote tyrant, shoving out votes for whatever reason I want.

Pre-edit: and uh, yeah. Right there again. Gloating about how he's manipulating people into arguing, using you as the backstop. And this is the guy you want to impartially keep around?

Absolutely. I'm also cool with keeping Beheld around, despite whatever it is he's saying right now. Even if you think Ryu's behavior is worse, I really don't think it can be argued as that much worse, and I doubt you think for a second that I'm weirdly biased in favor of Beheld. I don't think it's right to let my personal opinions bar people, in either case. You leave out a whole bunch of knowledge that way, at the hands of some random guy's (my) arbitrary opinions.

Also, thought I'd note, while your votes that go way against the grain are obviously not likely to make the big numbers change, they do still have value. The little numbers, particularly the mean but also maybe some later stuff like standard deviation, will be impacted by these votes. A lot of people will only see that warmage is tier three, but unlike with the original tier system, or even the community tiering thread, the fact that it's currently a 3.24 is probably relevant to some people. It's relevant to me, at least. And if you get some of these close enough to the bar without going over, they might wind up as the border classes, the worst class in a given tier such that being better or worse than them can plausibly fully determine a class' tier. Which I think it neat. Wizard is the third worst tier one right now. That's a thing of some kind.

[ryu]

I tend to highly value the principle of glasnost, transparency, over turning things into this fight for image. That people know exactly what goes into my decisions, that I give full and honest responses, I think it's important, even in a thread I'm leading. It means that, when I say Ryu didn't have significant influence over my decision, I feel like you, and by extension the thread, can trust that position. Cause I say stuff I mean, and leave as little out as possible.


I think Cosi actually took issue with me later saying that I thought Ryu could do the challenge if so inclined, rather than my vote removal. My response at the time is the same as my response now.

I think it's notable here that my method might not have been as ineffective as you think. I consider it a necessity that I eventually tell Beheld that his vote isn't counted if it, in fact, isn't counted, so either I was going to say it then, or I was going to say it later. Your suggestion is that the later version would have lacked the need for editing, and so would have been superior. However, had I waited, Ryu and Beheld would have likely continued their back and forth, creating several posts between the vote in question and my response. Which would quite possibly mean a post where Ryu specifically said that the vote should be removed. Waiting, therefore, could have made me appear even more biased, because now I'm basing my stance on this Ryu/Beheld argument post-vote, rather than on my personal stance on the vote. Something to think about.

Fair enough. I take this kinda thing seriously, y'know? As I noted above, I'm not really convinced that people besides you and Beheld think I'm biased on the basis of this vote removal, but this is one of those things where I have to be really frigging clear with people that I'm not biased, and that the level you have to be at where the vote will be removed is really high. It's why my original post was keeping the vote around despite its nature, because votes should count in the vast vast majority of cases. I can't be some kinda vote tyrant, shoving out votes for whatever reason I want.

Absolutely. I'm also cool with keeping Beheld around, despite whatever it is he's saying right now. Even if you think Ryu's behavior is worse, I really don't think it can be argued as that much worse, and I doubt you think for a second that I'm weirdly biased in favor of Beheld. I don't think it's right to let my personal opinions bar people, in either case. You leave out a whole bunch of knowledge that way, at the hands of some random guy's (my) arbitrary opinions.

Also, thought I'd note, while your votes that go way against the grain are obviously not likely to make the big numbers change, they do still have value. The little numbers, particularly the mean but also maybe some later stuff like standard deviation, will be impacted by these votes. A lot of people will only see that warmage is tier three, but unlike with the original tier system, or even the community tiering thread, the fact that it's currently a 3.24 is probably relevant to some people. It's relevant to me, at least. And if you get some of these close enough to the bar without going over, they might wind up as the border classes, the worst class in a given tier such that being better or worse than them can plausibly fully determine a class' tier. Which I think it neat. Wizard is the third worst tier one right now. That's a thing of some kind.

No I wouldn't have said any such thing. Like I said the best plans require convincing the fewest number of people of the fewest number of things. Directly asking the closest thing to a thread ruler to act in a case usually directly harms one's conversational capital. Even if I had done so through PM to keep it private, which I wouldn't do because that's the second lowest form of misinformation right above lying and well below me, you're the type of honest that wouldn't be claiming I had nothing to do with your decision even if you'd ignored it. Even if you had we both know I value your opinion more than pretty much any ten people here and wouldn't want to damage it that way.

On the subject of wizards fourth place is hardly a bad spot when there are six classes and an admitted protest vote.

[eggynack]

No I wouldn't have said any such thing.

Either way, having the post-vote discussion go in directions before responding holds risks. Whatever happens between the vote and my comments on it could be said to have some influence on my position. If that's a thing we're valuing as negative (not even sure if it should be, cause this is a thing very much open to input), then a fast response strikes me as ideal. Had I come into the thread like an hour later, I probably would have taken more time with my response because the utility of a fast response would already have been lost.

On the subject of wizards fourth place is hardly a bad spot when there are six classes and an admitted protest vote.

Sure. Wizards have a score pretty close to one. I find the placement of these classes interesting in general though. What the wizard numbers mean to me is, "Just about everyone thinks wizards are tier one, but there does exist the occasional dissenting opinion," while the cleric numbers mean, "No one disputes the tier oneness of this class."

[Fizban]

However, had I waited, Ryu and Beheld would have likely continued their back and forth, creating several posts between the vote in question and my response.

True, hence the suggestion to send them over to the other thread. If on the off chance they complied, and carried out the test, you could then collect the vote, otherwise the vote is indefinitely discounted without need for a later comment (using an initial phrasing of "take it over there and I'll count it if you sort it out" or somesuch").

You leave out a whole bunch of knowledge that way, at the hands of some random guy's (my) arbitrary opinions.

As long as you're aware it may be costing you a whole bunch of other knowledge, at the hands of his opinions.

Also, thought I'd note, while your votes that go way against the grain are obviously not likely to make the big numbers change, they do still have value. . . Wizard is the third worst tier one right now. That's a thing of some kind.

The spreadsheet is nice, but as with the broader system so with the spreadsheet: the people looking at it are the least likely to need it. I also wonder what would happen to the little and big numbers if all those empty spots were filled, if the non-voters could be enticed to vote and the voters were actually held to a standard other than personal opinion. Establishing the wizard as less than the top tier 1, if it was actually put into common use, would indeed be a significant accomplishment. More likely people would only acknowledge it offhandedly as a low-op outlier that technically pushed the vote down, reference the median or the mode instead of the mean, and continue pushing that wizards are always the best.

[EldritchWeaver]

Think more like a politician. Alternatively think more like a rube. Or, ya'know, Ryu, who took that post and used it to fuel the phrase "now they're not even paying attention to your votes," like it was a victory.

As for the lack of indication from other posters: we've got me, and oddly enough Cosi again in the "not directly agreeing but aimed at the same target," and any potential posters scared off by that exchange obviously aren't posting (which in principle, over time and multiple threads, are important).

You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way.

I'm one of those people who don't participate because of how eggynack handles things. I have read the thread and I view eggynack as protecting ryu, which is inacceptable, if you claim to be impartial. ryu's behavior is immature and anything but conductive to any kind of sensible discussion. Also, considering my views on tier system itself - which challenge the actual way how the current tiering is done - have been ignored by the supporters. As long I remain unchallenged, my view of the issue is how I interpret the votes. So I don't believe you actually measure what you want to measure which results in me not being interested in casting a vote in the first place.

[ryu]

Either way, having the post-vote discussion go in directions before responding holds risks. Whatever happens between the vote and my comments on it could be said to have some influence on my position. If that's a thing we're valuing as negative (not even sure if it should be, cause this is a thing very much open to input), then a fast response strikes me as ideal. Had I come into the thread like an hour later, I probably would have taken more time with my response because the utility of a fast response would already have been lost.

Sure. Wizards have a score pretty close to one. I find the placement of these classes interesting in general though. What the wizard numbers mean to me is, "Just about everyone thinks wizards are tier one, but there does exist the occasional dissenting opinion," while the cleric numbers mean, "No one disputes the tier oneness of this class."

Oh I'm not disputing your methods. Your decision was well reasoned. Just shooting down an inaccurate extrapolation of my expected behavior.

[eggynack]

True, hence the suggestion to send them over to the other thread. If on the off chance they complied, and carried out the test, you could then collect the vote, otherwise the vote is indefinitely discounted without need for a later comment (using an initial phrasing of "take it over there and I'll count it if you sort it out" or somesuch").

Whether I sent them off or not, I'd still have to explicitly state the non-inclusion and why. And I have and had no intention of changing that decision premised on the resolution to a wizard argument. Beheld said the bard vote was one being made in bad faith. I can't trust that the same vote made in the future won't be for the same reason. Your solution here doesn't really match the reality of what I was going for.

As long as you're aware it may be costing you a whole bunch of other knowledge, at the hands of his opinions.

Least that way winds up costing a reasonable distribution of people, rather than just everyone I disagree with.

The spreadsheet is nice, but as with the broader system so with the spreadsheet: the people looking at it are the least likely to need it. I also wonder what would happen to the little and big numbers if all those empty spots were filled, if the non-voters could be enticed to vote and the voters were actually held to a standard other than personal opinion. Establishing the wizard as less than the top tier 1, if it was actually put into common use, would indeed be a significant accomplishment. More likely people would only acknowledge it offhandedly as a low-op outlier that technically pushed the vote down, reference the median or the mode instead of the mean, and continue pushing that wizards are always the best.

I'm actually pretty likely to include some of this data in the end. The border classes at least seem worth inclusion, cause it's useful information, and my specific ordering within a tier might wind up with mean based ordering. Right now things are focused on getting the votes and getting them right. Once all the data is there, emphasis will shift more towards analysis. Maybe some measure of the whole, "Why each class is in its tier," thing, and with some room for folks to talk about various cool things in the data.

I'm one of those people who don't participate because of how eggynack handles things. I have read the thread and I view eggynack as protecting ryu, which is inacceptable, if you claim to be impartial. ryu's behavior is immature and anything but conductive to any kind of sensible discussion.

What am I protecting ryu from, precisely? People who aren't me get to have whatever opinion of him they want. The cost to saying things that people dislike is having the things you say disliked. It's really as straightforward as that. I am fully impartial in whether I include votes, with this current discounting based purely on the vote post itself. I am also fully impartial in whether I include voters. I do include them, whether I like them or not. I am not, and will never be, fully impartial in my opinions on various people, or in my opinions on various arguments. In the first two cases, and in the case of thread maintenance, I consider my position to be something of a thread leader, and I say things in accordance with that, impartiality and all. When I talk about what tier I think a class is, how I evaluate posts, people, and claims, I am generally doing so in the role of thread participant. My personal opinion on ryu's actions, in this context, is about as relevant as yours is.

[Fizban]

Almost tapped out-

Least that way winds up costing a reasonable distribution of people, rather than just everyone I disagree with.

. . . Wha? I don't see how the distribution of people who leave/never show up due to ryu's opinions is any different from if you removed people based on your own, it's still one person's opinion.

Except I would actually expect your distribution to be significantly more focused, as you'd be doing it intentionally. If you censured a limited number of people for behavior, which you would do with great clarity of purpose, it would be only those people (and maybe those like them who realize their shenanigans won't be had) lost. And others could be encouraged to join based on that. Rather than simply letting the winds of rage drive off whoever they drive off. I'm not going to convince you to tell ryu off, but a leader making principled decisions is infinitely better than writing off people who avoid the place because of you refuse to make that decision. It's kinda the whole principle of moderating a forum, or in this case the discussion within the forum (which would easy merit its own sub-forum on boards that do that).