Horation

(removed due to agressiveness)

(removed due to agressiveness)

I'm confused here, when did Lego release that GWP? Do you mean the Forestmen's hdeout?

Well the idea of that system is to have a small jury instead of a large group of voters, since this would make calculations easier to do and would encourage users to join so they can create a build and not so they can vote, hence avoiding the problems around large groups of people voting...

Indeed, same problem here. And since we're on the topic of future voting systems, I'd suggest maybe make it an elimination tournament, for example, 3 judges rank every entry. Let`s say there are 4 entries (named E1, E2, E3 and E4) The judges give the following rankings A : E1,E4,E2,E3 B:E3,E2,E4,E1 C:E1,E3,E2,E4 The entries are randomly paired, and then you have a bracket : E1 vs E4 Results : 2-1 E2 vs E3 Results : 1-2 Finals : E1 vs E3 Results : 2-1 You can do this for as many entries as you want, and you can release the results as quickly or as slowly as you want (so you can create some excitement), and it gives really fun results with very few judges (for example, this would theoretically work ∀ n entries | n ∈ ℕ , you simply need to give a couple of byes into an upper round to some entries, say those that come from newer users.) I believe this would also guarantee that the condorcet winner is the correct winner, but I'll check with the math department later... On second thought (and after further analysis), that statement above now seems false...

This kind of stuff is why having a few qualified judges is a better idea. I say remove MyFirstMoc from the contest so no else ever gets the clever idea to ask their followers to vote for them in such a way.

I understand that you have an investigation (and a 1000 other things to do...), so I hope I didn't come off as too aggressive, but you yourself said that one of those accounts (which did nothing more than vote for him) had the same IP as him, and while that might be explainable, it is really weird... This is the problematic point, this user likely encouraged others to create an account just to vote, so nothing too useful...

Well, even if he didn't do it (and hence shouldn't be banned from the site), banning him from the contest is the right thing to do. As for the mini-set category, I didn't enter any build whatsoever in any category, so the result will not affect my (0%) chance of winning, by that logic, should I be allowed to vote 20 times in one category? Of course not you will say, but then why is MyFirstMOC being given this privilege? It seems really unfair to others, especially since he's done the opposite of earning it...

Yes, plus it could affect the final count for the (super-tight!) mini-set category, we`re still waiting on that ban decision, @Mister Phes There could definitively be such a poll, and a like button doesn`t take a lot of bandwith, otherwise having an affiliate link to Lego or accepting sponsorships from custom-Lego products (like brickset does) is a good way to help pay for costs.

[Redacted disrespect of pointers]

[Redacted disrespect of pointers]

Your responses are clearer than many native anglophones... (though I have corrected any mistake in your message for the quote). Yes, there's alcohol in some sets, but no drugs, no display of violence, torture or dismemberment, and no display of drunkenness, so it's always kid-friendly I understand your point for 1), but I still feel like it would be disappointing to have a set where parts of the build are missing. As for the fire brigade, I always thought it was one's job to just use a few fire pieces to create one for your display. The modular homeless shelter could probably work, but even then, they'd be much likelier to make a long-term care or physical rehabilitation facility. Fun talk, and I'd love to see a courthouse...

Lego has always been a toy depicting an idealised life, so having signs of an economic recession (something which few kids would understand and that few adults can accurately explain) would make little sense. As for your Ideas 1) would make for a building much reduced in size, and since modulars are always about interesting architectural techniques, this idea would cut down the number of interesting building space in half (and would result in who knows how many complaints about Lego having cheapened the set by removing a floor 2), 3) and 5) could absolutely work, though this would have to be in some sort of haunted house setting (so not a modular, since those are always supposed to appeal to a broader audience), but 3) could be done with say, a construction crew working on repairing it in front of a regular modular, but this isn't what you want. 4) would not work at all, since Lego always tries to depict people living in near-equality and with little suffering, even those that do cause harm are usually not human and are causing it to someone who is either defending themselves or who is being defended, never would it make sense for TLG to release a set where someone is suffering in the alley while someone else is in a building enjoying themselves. But 6) is the only idea I find to be terrible, since many people know someone who lost their lives in such an accident, so why would they want a painful reminder of this in toy form? I know you are going to say that the accident needs not depict death, but it indirectly does whether or not it wants to. A broken down car could work quite well as a GWP, though. A dystopian steampunk style is still possible, as Lego did something like that for some rather popular Lego Movie 2 sets, just saying...

I am having fun, part of said fun is trying to figure out the winner, I rarely care all that much who wins, but it does make it a little nicer when I am correct. Anyways, mostly due to my behaviour, we have gotten off-topic a little. Here are the updated tables for all who wish to see : Main category Mini set category

I know you said you didn't want to argue anymore, but I feel like it is important to correct something here. You are making a strawman in the second part of your argument (in other words, you are attacking a weaker version of my argument to make my arguments seem worse than it is). In this case, you first see no benefit in my voting pattern, I don't get anything from "feeling good that I voted for the winner", however, I am more satisfied with the contest's results if the winner is the entry that I prefer, think of it like a sports competition ; don't you want your favourite team to win? Now, to move onto your second argument, you compare tactical voting (voting in an insincere but legitimate way) to those accounts that committed voter fraud (voting in an illegitimate way), and then, to add insult to injury, you pretend that I am supporting this voter fraud, and that others are disagreeing with it because it is not right in the same way as tactical voting. Now not only are those two types of votes different (as I showed above in bold), but on top of that, you insinuate that I, the same user that refused to even temporarily count the votes from those 4 suspicious accounts, am in favour of this blatant cheating because it is tactical in nature, this is obviously wrong, and while I'd have loved to continue this debate, you are clearly not arguing in good faith, so I'd rather we move on to something else and just agree to disagree.

Are you talking about the controversy surrounding JK Rowling's views or the (warranted) criticism of the sets, which are, I'll admit, much weaker than in previous waves (though this is partly due to the quality of those previous sets which makes these ones seem worse by comparison). Actually, I find the pink adds some much needed colour to what would have been a much more drab scheme, especially since there was already so much sand something in the build

Fair enough, I didn't see it in that way, I'll admit I was wrong on that count. I am grown up (I think, but I might just be a young butterfly that thinks it's a grown up human, or I might be dreaming that I'm existing, who knows...), and if I'm publicly admitting to having done so, then 10 people did it without saying so, and another 10 without even realising they were doing so (the article I link to below is quite interesting in that aspect). I don't feel bad about what I did, I did vote for my favourite entry, afterwards, the fact that I gave my votes to entries which I might have liked less than others which seemed better but might have stopped that entry I liked from getting a top spot is entirely legitimate, in fact it's called Tactical voting, and I've done it at every real election I voted in (so did between 33%-50% of voters here in Canada, depending on the poll). Now the fact of the matter is that I quite like doing so (it adds some fun to my vote). You think it is wrong, but the argument you give has convinced me of the validity of this method, since if I were to have lost a competition because of such behaviour, wouldn't it prove that my entry wasn't the best? After all, the voters felt so strongly in favour of another entry that they, to boost its chances, didn't vote for my great entry at all so as to reduce its odds of winning, sounds like we have a clear winner in such a hypothetical case... https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/

I think a simpler rule would be to allow people to vote as it is (to allow more newcomers), but to limit people to one entry for each creator per category, this would make any attempt to do voter fraud a little harder (and would force the fraudulent votes to focus on one entry, which would make the fraud more obvious)

Fair enough, though by that logic, maybe we should have waited before releasing these tables showing who's in the lead, since this will inevitably lead to some tactical voting (I mean, without even counting, I didn't vote for some entries to tactically improve the position of some entries which I did like). While we are on the topic of voting rules, perhaps the next time around runoff voting should be required, since it does appear that Oky's two entries combined got a lot more votes than Marooned Marin's entry (though I am of course aware that many people voted for two or even all three of these, so the effect of a runoff would be unclear), it would avoid any vote splitting from two similar entries (for instance, two rafts splitting the votes between them and an island winning instead, despite it not being most people's favourite). I'd have suggested it sooner, but I went through a period of inactivity in the past couple of weeks.

Nah, apparently they're "politically incorrect" or something... On a more useful note, are users allowed to edit their votes if said votes were initially valid?

Ok, just to clarify, I was explaining why I liked the castle set over the older one. Now, how could I not think, after this, that you aren't able to see things in the context of the time they're made in, the intended audience, the available pieces, etc.? For example it's quite obvious that the new sets are better than the old ones, but you are constantly complaining about how they are needlessly detailed and expensive, and how they'd be better if they were to go back to the olden days' detail levels. Also, you are simultaneously saying that the church "is overdetailed and oversized for its own good. Take this, compress it, don't go full "and here someone carved their name in the wall" and you'd have a set that's cute, wonderful and affordable and 10305-ish done good." and "Were 10305 as detailed as that church, or at least halfway there, I'd like it a lot. Even if it was much smaller." So you are saying you wouldn't like the church, because it is too detailed. But that you would like 10305 if it was as detailed as the church, even if 10305 had to be reduced in size a little. So you are trolling, and constantly disagreeing with others just for the sake of it, next time at least be sure to be consistent. P.S. I'm ignoring you so no need to reply

But I like wolfpack, dark forest AND forestmen, what if I'm trying to join their ranks? Allright, I do hope that F1stzz gets the professional helper he mentioned (I'll go back to ignoring him, and I'll be sure to login right away so I don't accidentally see his [redacted])

Ok, I'm done with this debate, but I can see why we argued for so long, we really don't see things the same way, that van looks absurdly chunky (aka terrible), but that first set looks playful and rebuildable, packed with details which are recognisable, including indeed a place where someone carved their name, a spot with a hidden frog, etc... Lego used to excel in "going around the limitations to capture the essence of a thing suited for any age". Now they excel more at "capturing the essence of something with a thousand more pieces than before, which still goes around limitations to create a thing suited to any age, but arguably geared a little more towards adults and teens (at a price which, when you readjust it for inflation, is similar to the past, but with far more parts)".

Absolutely true, it was great for buisness but it's a good thing that it died

And here it is for the other category, my totals might differ from others' due to not having counted the 4 suspicious voters, In fact I seem to remember the top two having 18 votes instead of 17 with control F, but once you look at only the valid votes, it is clear that the extra vote for each is from a probably fraudulent account.