Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Welcome to BZPower!

Hi there, while we hope you enjoy browsing through the site, there's a lot more you can do if you register. The process is easy and you can use your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account to make it even faster. Some perks of joining include:
  • Create your own topics, participate in existing discussions, and vote in polls
  • Show off your creations, stories, art, music, and movies and play member and staff-run games
  • Enter contests to win free LEGO sets and other prizes, and vote to decide the winners
  • Participate in raffles, including exclusive raffles for new members, and win free LEGO sets
  • Send private messages to other members
  • Organize with other members to attend or send your MOCs to LEGO fan events all over the world
  • Much, much more!
Enjoy your visit!





Photo

Okay, Let's Get This Straight...

Posted by 55555 , Apr 21 2009 · 80 views

First off, I hope your not allergic to indignation if you're reading this entry.

So in the BS01 Certavus contest, they recently started the final poll and it's gotten a ton of publicity, and a ton of votes (Over 1000, in the end). Entry #1 began to pull ahead of the other entries towards the end, at a remarkable speed. Many people thought that this was cheating, and said as much. But in every poll that gets a lot of publicity from various sources, there is a gigantic amount of current winner fluctuation, because of the variety of people voting. I personally think that there was nothing wrong, rigged, or otherwise screwed up in the poll by Saber Masquerade. But, regardless, Swert decided to START A NEW POLL with the five leaders as of the topic's closing. Thus destroying Entry #1's large lead, and virtually adding at least 30 votes to the other finalling entries.

Does that sound fair to you?

For reference:
Old Poll
New Poll

In closing I would like to ask you guys to vote for entry number four in the Final Final Poll, to lessen the 30 vote handicap placed on him.

Also I'd like to say that out of all the people arguing about whether or not SB was cheating, KonguTohunga was the most correct.

55555

  • 0



If there is no proof of cheating in anyway, there is no reason to accuse of such an offense. If there was no proof presented to show that there was cheating, then I highly doubt there was any. If the people voted for him/her, and him/her pulled ahead like that, and there is no cheating proof, then they should go by those results. Regardless of what people who are complaining say.

Even though I didn't vote for #1, they technically did win it fair and square as far as I am concerned.

After reading the topic, it does make me feel sad for the member.
    • 0
I disagree with you in your second to last sentence. I think people should just vote for whichever they think is best.

I mean, if it was all legal and everything [which I think and hope it was] then there should be no problem for SM to gain all those votes back. All people have to do is vote for him again.

Whether or not I think making a new poll is fair, I'm undecided.

And on a completely unrelated note, my blog name needs to be changed in your content block. =P
    • 0
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 11:16 PM)
I disagree with you in your second to last sentence. I think people should just vote for whichever they think is best.

I mean, if it was all legal and everything [which I think and hope it was] then there should be no problem for SM to gain all those votes back. All people have to do is vote for him again.

Whether or not I think making a new poll is fair, I'm undecided.

And on a completely unrelated note, my blog name needs to be changed in your content block. =P


I doubt that everyone who voted even know that there is an extra "special" final poll anymore. Therefore the same crowd may not return, and thus the entry is stomped on anyway.
    • 0
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 08:20 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 11:16 PM)
I disagree with you in your second to last sentence. I think people should just vote for whichever they think is best.

I mean, if it was all legal and everything [which I think and hope it was] then there should be no problem for SM to gain all those votes back. All people have to do is vote for him again.

Whether or not I think making a new poll is fair, I'm undecided.

And on a completely unrelated note, my blog name needs to be changed in your content block. =P


I doubt that everyone who voted even know that there is an extra "special" final poll anymore. Therefore the same crowd may not return, and thus the entry is stomped on anyway.



Well, if they made another news entry they probably would..

I actually think it would have been better to never have the news story in the first place, but too late now. =P

    • 0
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 08:20 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 11:16 PM)
I disagree with you in your second to last sentence. I think people should just vote for whichever they think is best.

I mean, if it was all legal and everything [which I think and hope it was] then there should be no problem for SM to gain all those votes back. All people have to do is vote for him again.

Whether or not I think making a new poll is fair, I'm undecided.

And on a completely unrelated note, my blog name needs to be changed in your content block. =P


I doubt that everyone who voted even know that there is an extra "special" final poll anymore. Therefore the same crowd may not return, and thus the entry is stomped on anyway.



Well, if they made another news entry they probably would..

I actually think it would have been better to never have the news story in the first place, but too late now. =P




I actually thought that the News story was a good idea - since it alerts to BZP that people are voting on what a Bionicle character looks like. Gives the community a fair warning, no? And they do that with practically every contest anyway XP
    • 0
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.

-Laka
    • 0
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.

-Laka


This one.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

@ Spink ~ Yeah, I guess you're right... oh well.
    • 0
Photo
cags//cunninghat/2x2b
Apr 21 2009 10:34 PM
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.
    • 0
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 09:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.

-Laka


This one.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

@ Spink ~ Yeah, I guess you're right... oh well.

He shouldn't have to "win again." He was winning. They essentially took his votes and incinerated them. No one should have to win twice.

Some people who voted once may not feel like voting again. They might be confused (and with good reason) and think they already voted in the poll. Some may not get online again before the deadline.

Bottom line: He was winning. Now the situation is different, thus the result could also be different.
    • 0
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.
    • 0
Photo
cags//cunninghat/2x2b
Apr 21 2009 10:44 PM
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.

Well, of course they won't vote for a cheater. That's the entire point of re-doing the poll.
    • 0
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.

Well, of course they won't vote for a cheater. That's the entire point of re-doing the poll.


But there is no proof that he even cheated to start with. How would you like it if you were winning a contest, amazingly so, and then a bunch of people say "You cheated" and you lose all of that progression and are labeled a "cheater"? I'd feel pretty depressed.
    • 0
Photo
cags//cunninghat/2x2b
Apr 21 2009 10:46 PM
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.

Well, of course they won't vote for a cheater. That's the entire point of re-doing the poll.


But there is no proof that he even cheated to start with.

And you're "in the know" since when, exactly?
    • 0
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:46 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.

Well, of course they won't vote for a cheater. That's the entire point of re-doing the poll.


But there is no proof that he even cheated to start with.

And you're "in the know" since when, exactly?


Just looking at the topic itself. And the fact that no one besides for administration can see if there is proof, and if he cheated he would have been DQ'd if there was proof.
    • 0
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.

Well, of course they won't vote for a cheater. That's the entire point of re-doing the poll.


But there is no proof that he even cheated to start with.

And you're "in the know" since when, exactly?

Wait, what? If there's any proof, please quote it.

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Why is everyone accusing this guy when there isn't proof?
    • 0
Photo
cags//cunninghat/2x2b
Apr 21 2009 10:59 PM
QUOTE(Anomaly @ Apr 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Wait, what? If there's any proof, please quote it.

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Why is everyone accusing this guy when there isn't proof?

If I still had copies of it I would. I stopped logging IM convos after since me hates consequences.
    • 0
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:59 PM)
QUOTE(Anomaly @ Apr 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Wait, what? If there's any proof, please quote it.

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Why is everyone accusing this guy when there isn't proof?

If I still had copies of it I would. I stopped logging IM convos after since me hates consequences.


But if there was proof for cheating, then why wasn't the member DQ'd from the contest? Cheating in contests generally results in disqualification. Not a second chance in the top five.
    • 0
Photo
cags//cunninghat/2x2b
Apr 21 2009 11:06 PM
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:59 PM)
QUOTE(Anomaly @ Apr 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Wait, what? If there's any proof, please quote it.

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Why is everyone accusing this guy when there isn't proof?

If I still had copies of it I would. I stopped logging IM convos after since me hates consequences.


But if there was proof for cheating, then why wasn't the member DQ'd from the contest? Cheating in contests generally results in disqualification. Not a second chance in the top five.

Plausibly because they knew somebody'd whine about it. Moreso than is happening now.
    • 0
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 22 2009, 12:06 AM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:59 PM)
QUOTE(Anomaly @ Apr 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Wait, what? If there's any proof, please quote it.

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Why is everyone accusing this guy when there isn't proof?

If I still had copies of it I would. I stopped logging IM convos after since me hates consequences.


But if there was proof for cheating, then why wasn't the member DQ'd from the contest? Cheating in contests generally results in disqualification. Not a second chance in the top five.

Plausibly because they knew somebody'd whine about it. Moreso than is happening now.


If they mean that somebody would whine about the disqualification, if there was proof, then I wouldn't be one of the people with different views on what has transpired. If there actually was solid evidence with the event, and if the fact that the member cheated was found to be true because of facts and not thought, then I wouldn't be very defending at the moment. However, there is so far no actual evidence that has been confirmed to exist, and if it did exist then I believe that the BS01 staff would have DQ'd the entry because of that.
    • 0
We decided to make a definitive poll.

As mentioned already, IF the entry deserves to win, he'll win.

I'm sorry if you all disagree.

As for news, we'll not be making a news article for this one. If BZP chooses to do so, I'll let them. -Swert
    • 0
QUOTE(Anomaly @ Apr 21 2009, 08:50 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE(Fallen Spink @ Apr 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE(Cags @ Apr 21 2009, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE(Toa Velox @ Apr 21 2009, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(ULTIMATE Laka @ Apr 21 2009, 08:29 PM)
It's as simple as this: if it wasn't cheating, then it should have no problem winning again.
-Laka

This one.

Thirding because this entry needs truth in it.


People may not vote for him anymore due to the accusations in the previous topic. They may not want to vote for a "Cheater" that the member was unjustifiably labeled just because he started pulling ahead.

Well, of course they won't vote for a cheater. That's the entire point of re-doing the poll.


But there is no proof that he even cheated to start with.

And you're "in the know" since when, exactly?

Wait, what? If there's any proof, please quote it.

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Why is everyone accusing this guy when there isn't proof?


Seriously. I mean, all this time I've thought and wished that he's innocent, but I also wanted to point out what could have happened. So, yes, I think he's innocent.
    • 0
Just to clarify. There was no cheating in the polling; there was simply a lot of complaints about #1's fast rise after being so far behind. If you think it was unfair, then encourage everyone you know to vote for 1 again.
    • 0
Photo
The Alchemyst
Apr 21 2009 11:37 PM
That lack of a news story really sucks.

I mean there's a chance that it won't pull ahead again, for many reasons:

No News Story.
Individual 1000+ that probably won't be there again.
EDIT: Basically all the things that happened that made the poll what it was, whether it was feelings, posts, news story, whatever, had happened justifiably, and it's been taken away.
And does the contest still go on only to the 23rd?
Cause that would suck.
A lot.

I feel that ~SM~ was unjustifiably wronged.
Chances are things might not happen like they did last time.
He was winning that time, and since there was no cheating, it was just.
It's almost like arresting you under vague premonitions or assumptions.
Things like that surge can happen. It's not impossible.

I'd be pretty darn mad if I was ~SM~
The complainers stole a dream because of complete [and it seems fraudulent] assumptions.

If I were you Swert, I'd just continue the old poll.

[-The Alchemyst-]
    • 0
Photo
cags//cunninghat/2x2b
Apr 21 2009 11:38 PM
QUOTE(InnerRayg @ Apr 21 2009, 11:24 PM)
Just to clarify. There was no cheating in the polling;

'tisn't what I heard.

But convos=insanity, so w/e.
    • 0
QUOTE(Al-C-H-Y @ Apr 21 2009, 09:37 PM)
If I were you Swert, I'd just continue the old poll.

[-The Alchemyst-]

Believe me, THIS WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION. I discussed it with SEVERAL people before deciding to toss it and take the top 5, then restart it.

The polls close at the 23rd at 9 PM PST. There's plenty of time for this to turn around.

I'll discuss a news article tomorrow with the news folks and see if we can get it reposted. If not, I'll think of something. -Swert
    • 0
Wow, there's been a lot of action around here.

I understand it was not an easy decision Swert, but I think you came to the wrong conclusion. Every time a poll is posted you can't tell exactly who will vote for what, and in contests the entrants just have to prepare as best they can for what they think the public will support. Now everything has been changed, many people believe that SB is a cheater, which will not encourage them to vote for him.

55555
    • 0
Read Swert's post in my latest blog entry - he said ~SM~ was fine with the decision.
    • 0

☆ Welcome To... ☆

☆ The Me Block ☆





Stone Champion Defeated

Group: Reporters
Posts: 2705
Joined: 17-November 06
Member No.: 47785
Location: USA
Interests: Drawing, MOCing, Reffing Soccer, Pro Baseball, The Gimp
Religion: Roman Catholic
More Stuff: Member Interview #4

☆ Awesome Links ☆



Blogs:

Midnight Voltage
Velox's blog of win.

Scientific Progress Goes "Boink"
CF's blog of win.

Elm Street
SK's blog of win.

The Vantage Point
DudeNuva's blog of win. (Inactive.)

Makuta With A Cold™
Gryphus 1's blog of win. (Inactive.)

Art:

Mata Nui, Kopaka & Tahu
3D Revamp Of Poison Of Bbc#50

Games:

Bionicle Mafia 28

Shops:

Spectral Avohkii Enterprises (Activeish.)
Dark Beings Banner & Avatar Shop (Inactive.)
Silver Avohkii Productions (Inactive.)

☆ Seals Of Approval ☆



My Approval:



-----------------------






































Recent Comments

  • Photo
    Wow
    55555 - Jul 20 2010 10:12 PM
  • Photo
    Wow
    Bundalings - Jul 20 2010 08:26 PM
  • Photo
    Brickfair
    55555 - Sep 01 2009 01:54 PM
  • Photo
    Brickfair
    DeeVee - Sep 01 2009 01:02 PM
  • Photo
    Hm
    Chols - Sep 01 2009 12:43 PM

Recent Entries

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users