looking at numbers is the point of voting idk what to tell you. i absolutely understand your logic is "people don't want it to change to trap, and people don't want it to change to femboy, which means people want it to change" and im telling you that's dumb logic. the one that's positive is the one that is keeping otokonoko. maybe your ranked choice voting would have merit but you can't really make the claim that you're making off of the data; people keep framing at as a comparison between two options when there is very clearly three and one is ahead.
What blindVigil said. The only way we can be sure a voter supports otoko no ko (or at least prefers it to trap and femboy) is if they downvoted both BURs. Also, look at the Python script nonamethanks created in forum #350604. It uses these facts to count the effective votes for each option, including otoko no ko. Running the analysis again (with the adjustment I added in forum #350696 to separate those upvoting both), we get the following:
Trap: 43 Femboy: 26 Trap or femboy (double upvotes): 6 Otoko no ko: 22
Both trap and femboy by themselves outnumber otoko no ko. If we add the first three categories to get the number of votes in favor of any change, we get:
Change: 75 No change: 22
So currently, there are more than 3 times the number of users voting for change compared to those voting against change, and for all we know, some of the latter may be willing to upvote another option if it were introduced.
This does not include voters who voted negative on one and meh on the other, as they are either tentatively supporting the one they voted meh on or they are undecided between one of the given options and otoko no ko.
man whatever i should've known better than to argue with idiots who get their language from twenty year old memes i guess. do what you want. fuckin farce is right
Do these analyses at all take into account people who voted on one but not the other? Cuz that's relevant too—people who voted on one and abstained on the other didn't just not vote at all. forum #351387 only adds up to a total of ~100 voters across both BURs, which can't possibly be right as the first BUR alone has over 120. im not doing precise math r/n sleep beckons me
Do these analyses at all take into account people who voted on one but not the other? Cuz that's relevant too—people who voted on one and abstained on the other didn't just not vote at all. forum #351387 only adds up to a total of ~100 voters across both BURs, which can't possibly be right as the first BUR alone has over 120. im not doing precise math r/n sleep beckons me
It was already explained that not all voters were included. It is possible that the users that only voted negative on one would do so on the other if they were aware of it, but we can't make that assumption for the simple fact that they didn't vote on that BUR.
Below is a table of the votes of everyone that voted for at least one of the BURs:
Trap vs. Femboy vs. Otoko no Ko
Trap No Vote
Trap Negative
Trap Meh
Trap Positive
Femboy No Vote
0
16
4
15
Femboy Negative
2
23
5
24
Femboy Meh
1
17
3
4
Femboy Positive
5
20
1
7
If we assume that the users that voted against only one of the BURs also would've voted against the other, then the results are as follows:
Trap: 43 Femboy: 26 Trap or femboy (double upvotes): 7 Otoko no ko: 22 + 18 = 40
Change: 76 No change: 40
So otoko no ko would be in second place, just barely behind trap. However, this is assuming the single-BUR voters would have voted in a specific way, which we have no way of knowing until they actually vote for the other BUR.
I remember when jxh changed trap to otoko_no_ko and was against it at the time, but I think there's merit in keeping it. Makes new people more likely to look at the wiki definition, and that's always a good thing when it comes to tagging. There's good arguments in favor of trap though, so I don't feel too strongly about it.
That being said, I'm not sure what practical purpose all this vote analysis stuff is supposed to serve. Things are simple: a proposal is put forth, people vote on it, and you can tell at a glance from the colors where people stand on said proposal. It's quite obvious where they stand in the BURs proposed in this thread too.
If the point is to show that most people don't like otoko_no_ko and would prefer it aliased to something else then fine, but going through all this trouble to do that doesn't really help the current discussion much since it's clear at a glance by the colors alone that most people are against aliasing it to either trap or femboy anyways.
it's clear at a glance by the colors alone that most people are against aliasing it to either trap or femboy anyways.
But that's not true. Most people are for changing the tag name. It looks that way to you because most people are downvoting one and upvoting the other.
nonamethanks said: But that's not true. Most people are for changing the tag name. It looks that way to you because most people are downvoting one and upvoting the other.
What it looks like to me is that there are two proposals for changing the tag name to something else and both have more downvotes than upvotes, so if most people are for changing the tag name as you say, then it seems we need a third option.
Edit: I recognize I phrased that wrong before, my bad.
What it looks like to me is that there are two proposals for changing the tag name to something else and both have more downvotes than upvotes, so if most people are for changing the tag name as you say, then it seems we need a third option.
Edit: I recognize I phrased that wrong before, my bad.
The implicit third option is to keep the tag as otoko no ko, which would be pointless to make a BUR for. All it would do is make it easier visually, and that’s assuming the same users vote on it in the first place.
The implicit third option is to keep the tag as otoko no ko, which would be pointless to make a BUR for. All it would do is make it easier visually, and that’s assuming the same users vote on it in the first place.
I assume they mean a third option for a rename, but that wouldn't really change anything. If we had an acceptable third option, it would already be a BUR, and there's no guarantee its votes would be any more favorable than the other BURs.
^ Let's not forget this BUR. It has the highest positive vote percentage.
FWIW, I've changed my vote on femboy to positive, but only because if I had to choose between that or trap, I would choose femboy. I don't like either though.
^ Let's not forget this BUR. It has the highest positive vote percentage.
FWIW, I've changed my vote on femboy to positive, but only because if I had to choose between that or trap, I would choose femboy. I don't like either though.
That's a completely different BUR. It's not a vote for the status quo, it's a vote to fix the existing name. Several people that upvoted that BUR also upvoted one the other two. All you can interpret from that BUR is that if the name doesn't change, the majority of voters would prefer the current name be fixed to be more correct. That doesn't mean they prefer that name over the alternatives.
That's a completely different BUR. It's not a vote for the status quo, it's a vote to fix the existing name. Several people that upvoted that BUR also upvoted one the other two. All you can interpret from that BUR is that if the name doesn't change, the majority of voters would prefer the current name be fixed to be more correct. That doesn't mean they prefer that name over the alternatives.
That's a reductive way to view it imo. Some may have upvoted that and another, but others downvoted both others and only upvoted this one. This is the closest it gets to a status quo BUR without creating something extremely redundant, like alias otoko_no_ko -> otoko_no_ko
At this point, I would like admins to consider some kind of third-party tiered polling system just to consolidate everything into one place. Having all these separate BURs is leading to too many arguments on how to interpret the data
That's a reductive way to view it imo. Some may have upvoted that and another, but others downvoted both others and only upvoted this one. This is the closest it gets to a status quo BUR without creating something extremely redundant, like alias otoko_no_ko -> otoko_no_ko
At this point, I would like admins to consider some kind of third-party tiered polling system just to consolidate everything into one place. Having all these separate BURs is leading to too many arguments on how to interpret the data
How is that view reductive? It's acknowledging another group of voters, not removing the voters you mentioned out of consideration. "Several" does not mean "all." The point is that the BUR does not serve the same purpose as the ones in this thread. What's really reductive is assuming the votes for that BUR indicate a support of the status quo and ignoring the other reasons someone would vote for it. It's like claiming that the people voting for a presidential candidate are 100% in support of the candidate's policies.
How is that view reductive? It's acknowledging another group of voters, not removing the voters you mentioned out of consideration. [...]
The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't a completely different BUR, it's directly related to the topic at hand and should be considered when comparing the other two options.
The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't a completely different BUR, it's directly related to the topic at hand and should be considered when comparing the other two options.
It is a different BUR, because the topic is about renaming otoko no ko to a totally different term. That BUR is about making the existing name more correct. That BUR is not a vote to keep otoko no ko, and it's only really relevant if neither of the other two BURs are approved. If either of them is approved, then that BUR is dead by default. You would need to cross reference every individual voter to try and interpret what their reasoning for voting on that BUR is, and it wouldn't be as straightforward as the other two BURs.
i think people are psychoanalyzing the arrows and neutral faces of disconnected BURs as anything but sentiment on the individual proposed changes a bit too much
+1 to this.
I upvoted femboy because of the two proposed changes it is the better to me but if there was a no-op BUR I would upvote that too because I don't really care between the two of those imperfect options, but I think either is far superior to trap.
If that gets interpreted as "pro-rename so we should rename, and then trap is the most popular rename so use that" it is the exact opposite of my preference which is "I don't care whether we rename, but if we do it should not be to trap".
I upvoted femboy because of the two proposed changes it is the better to me but if there was a no-op BUR I would upvote that too because I don't really care between the two of those imperfect options, but I think either is far superior to trap.
If that gets interpreted as "pro-rename so we should rename, and then trap is the most popular rename so use that" it is the exact opposite of my preference which is "I don't care whether we rename, but if we do it should not be to trap".
You do have a point, actually. Upvoting one and downvoting another doesn’t actually mean they’re against otoko no ko. However, regardless of intention, they are still effectively voting for a change. There is a potential disconnect between what the voters want and what the voters can choose. The only option available to vote for otoko no ko is to downvote both BURs. Anything other than a double-vote combination could be interpreted as support for change.
At this point, I now agree that trying to combine the groups into pro-change and anti-change was flawed. The pro-trap and pro-femboy camps need to be treated as separate entities, not combined to gang up on the pro-status quo voters.
And this may be a crazy idea, but maybe we should’ve had an explicitly pro otoko-no-ko BUR, even if it were just for voting purposes. That would’ve made the votes a lot more obvious, at least.
At this point, I now agree that trying to combine the groups into pro-change and anti-change was flawed. The pro-trap and pro-femboy camps need to be treated as separate entities, not combined to gang up on the pro-status quo voters.
The only reason this has even been a talking point is because some people were trying to argue that both BURs having majority downvotes meant the majority supported the status quo, which is just as flawed an interpretation as any other. We can't just pretend these votes are anonymous or that every vote is from a unique user when they're obviously not.
The only reason this has even been a talking point is because some people were trying to argue that both BURs having majority downvotes meant the majority supported the status quo, which is just as flawed an interpretation as any other. We can't just pretend these votes are anonymous or that every vote is from a unique user when they're obviously not.
I agree, and I was surprised people were trying to argue the BURs should be treated as completely separate. Nonamethanks had the right idea in cross-referencing voters across both BURs. However, as nonemouse pointed out, the assumption that an upvote for one BUR meant a vote in favor of changing the tag was flawed. I also think it would’ve been better to give the numbers for each combination from the start so that there could be more discussion of how to interpret the data if necessary.
