Ultimate Wrestler Tourney polls... thoughts?

[Everlong]

Do you guys have a strong feeling either way on including polls in the tourney? I think we may get more people to vote by having the polls included, but at the same time, we might encourage more discussion if people have to post who they're voting for rather than clicking a button.

Like, the example I'll use here is this Taker/Piper match, in which Taker is winning 7-4 yet the only people who actually posted voted for Piper. It's kind of strange.

Thoughts?

[Str8Shooter]

I'd probably keep the polls, for this tournament anyway. If we do more then maybe change it.

I do think some people just won't vote that way. And the more votes the better, it helps make the final decisions a little bit more realistic with the bigger sample size.

I do encourage people to post something though, even if it's a couple sentences about why.

[ShaneOfan]

I'd say keep the polls you will get more responses. If I am being perfectly honest, I think people are staying away from posting because if they don't agree with the majority people are being torn up a bit. I'm not calling anyone out here but I feel like some people's opinions aren't being respected as they should. The point of a discussion is to allow people to express their ideas not to explain why people are wrong for not agreeing. This tournament is way to subjective and in the end doesn't matter and I think people are taking it way to personally and seriously.

[Str8Shooter]

I'll back Shaneo, I love a good discussion, even a somewhat heated debate is what we're tying to do with this. But I'm not entirely sure either that everyone is respecting other people's opinions and being tolerant of them.

Go ahead and debate, go ahead and disagree, but do it with as much respect as possible.

[The Legend]

Definitely keep the polls. It keeps it easier to keep track and I don't think it limits discussion that much. I think all of the other matchups have had more responses than votes. You might have just found one bad topic.

[VaderBomb]

Keep the polls, but I think that if you vote you should at least say a sentence or two explaining why you feel that way.

[Everlong]

I think the only time opinions have been even close to getting "disrespected" was when there were some outlandishly ludicrous opinions being given. If you think a person is better than another person, or enjoyed another person more, that's fine. I don't think anybody is going to attack another person for saying they like one wrestler more than another.

But when you start to give completely illogical or crazy reasons, people or going to refute them.

I don't want to sound heartless here, but let's not pretend that there's no such thing as a stupid opinion. When people like one person more than another and find them more entertaining, fair enough, that can't be argued against and that's legitimate. That's all you really need to say to justify voting for them. But if you're going to engage even deeper in the discussion and give reasons for your voting and you say something that's absurd or can easily be contradicted, then yeah, people are going to dissect your argument.

People don't need to post an essay about why they're voting for a person; it'd just be nice to see more people say who they're voting for, and if the reason is simply "I like them more," then that's totally fine.

[Str8Shooter]

I think the only time opinions have been even close to getting "disrespected" was when there were some outlandishly ludicrous opinions being given. If you think a person is better than another person, or enjoyed another person more, that's fine. I don't think anybody is going to attack another person for saying they like one wrestler more than another.

But when you start to give completely illogical or crazy reasons, people or going to refute them.

I don't want to sound heartless here, but let's not pretend that there's no such thing as a stupid opinion. When people like one person more than another and find them more entertaining, fair enough, that can't be argued against and that's legitimate. That's all you really need to say to justify voting for them. But if you're going to engage even deeper in the discussion and give reasons for your voting and you say something that's absurd or can easily be contradicted, then yeah, people are going to dissect your argument.

People don't need to post an essay about why they're voting for a person; it'd just be nice to see more people say who they're voting for, and if the reason is simply "I like them more," then that's totally fine.

I agree to some extent, you heartless bastard...

The Bret Hart/Jericho discussion is the one you're referring to most I presume. And it's not unthinkable to me that people didn't much like Bret, especially on the mic, and found him to be boring. I've come across people throughout the years that feel that way, so I don't think it's that ludicrous that someone on here would think that, even if I disagree with it.

[AkydefGoldberg]

I'll admit that I have sometimes voted and not posted. Only reason is that I've not seen the other, more well known guy (for example Piper) than the guy I've seen regularly for a few years (Undertaker) so I feel I put down "I've voted for Taker because I've seen him more than Piper" then folks might think "Well, you're just voting for who you've seen" and frankly, don't have the time to trawl through matches, segments as much.

But yeah, on your request, will try to post and vote.

[Georgerv]

I think the only time opinions have been even close to getting "disrespected" was when there were some outlandishly ludicrous opinions being given. If you think a person is better than another person, or enjoyed another person more, that's fine. I don't think anybody is going to attack another person for saying they like one wrestler more than another.

But when you start to give completely illogical or crazy reasons, people or going to refute them.

I don't want to sound heartless here, but let's not pretend that there's no such thing as a stupid opinion. When people like one person more than another and find them more entertaining, fair enough, that can't be argued against and that's legitimate. That's all you really need to say to justify voting for them. But if you're going to engage even deeper in the discussion and give reasons for your voting and you say something that's absurd or can easily be contradicted, then yeah, people are going to dissect your argument.

People don't need to post an essay about why they're voting for a person; it'd just be nice to see more people say who they're voting for, and if the reason is simply "I like them more," then that's totally fine.

I agree to some extent, you heartless bastard...

The Bret Hart/Jericho discussion is the one you're referring to most I presume. And it's not unthinkable to me that people didn't much like Bret, especially on the mic, and found him to be boring. I've come across people throughout the years that feel that way, so I don't think it's that ludicrous that someone on here would think that, even if I disagree with it.

Dear god, Bret sucked on the mic. One of the most boring talkers I have ever seen

[prophet]

I'll admit that I have sometimes voted and not posted. Only reason is that I've not seen the other, more well known guy (for example Piper) than the guy I've seen regularly for a few years (Undertaker) so I feel I put down "I've voted for Taker because I've seen him more than Piper" then folks might think "Well, you're just voting for who you've seen" and frankly, don't have the time to trawl through matches, segments as much.

But yeah, on your request, will try to post and vote.

I don't see how that's a bad thing though. If you've seen a lot of Undertaker and none of Piper - surely that's reason enough to vote for Taker? I don't see how anyone can question that logic.

[Hanley!]

I think the reason people aren't commenting on who they voted for is a lot simpler: they want to support their favourite wrestlers, but they haven't seen enough of their opponents to justify their opinion.

Undertaker v Piper is the example that's been given here, and in a match like that you can easily see how this might happen. Undertaker is still wrestling, Piper stopped years ago. So there are probably a bunch of guys here who know who the Undertaker is and would prefer to see him go forward ... so they vote for him. They can't actually say with any certainty that he's better than Piper though, because they've barely seen Piper. So it's safer to just say nothing.

I'm not sure if there's any real solution to that though. It's not like people will be able to catch up on an old wrestler's body of work while the voting is in progress. Closing down the polls and doing everything by post would make it a fairer debate, but would also exclude people. So it's probably best to leave things as they are.

Though an interesting idea for future tournaments might be to judge things based on 3 categories:
1) Poll results
2) Results based solely on what people posted
3) Amount of rep earned on each side of the debate

Something like that. You'd need 3 categories to reduce the likelihood of a draw.

For now I'm happy just to continue as things are though. The winners aren't so important as the conversations anyway.

I'll back Shaneo, I love a good discussion, even a somewhat heated debate is what we're tying to do with this. But I'm not entirely sure either that everyone is respecting other people's opinions and being tolerant of them.

Go ahead and debate, go ahead and disagree, but do it with as much respect as possible.

I don't see how things are really getting heated. There's been plenty of back and forth discussion, but surely that's the point? I know in the Cena v Savage thread, myself and Daz and Messiah were all posting essays at each other, but I don't think any of us came away from it with hurt feelings or thinking any less of anyone else. It's just a bit of fun after all. But the fun is in the debating. If you don't respond to what anyone else says then it's not a discussion, it's just 30 people in the same room, all of them just talking to themselves.

Occasionally people get overly sensitive about this kind of thing. I've been on quite a few forums over the years, and this one is the friendliest and least mean-spirited by a wide margin. Take the rep system for starters - the neg rep is rarely ever used and I don't think there's a single user here who's rep is in the negative figures. That level of respect is really fucking rare on the internet.

[AkydefGoldberg]

I'll admit that I have sometimes voted and not posted. Only reason is that I've not seen the other, more well known guy (for example Piper) than the guy I've seen regularly for a few years (Undertaker) so I feel I put down "I've voted for Taker because I've seen him more than Piper" then folks might think "Well, you're just voting for who you've seen" and frankly, don't have the time to trawl through matches, segments as much.

But yeah, on your request, will try to post and vote.

I don't see how that's a bad thing though. If you've seen a lot of Undertaker and none of Piper - surely that's reason enough to vote for Taker? I don't see how anyone can question that logic.

It's one thing to vote, it's another to post something credible as to why X is better than Z when you've not seen Z at all, or just a minor bits and pieces. It just leaves it open for people to say "Well how can you vote X over Z when you've not seen Z?" as sometimes it does tend to go down that path.

Maybe in the earlier stages you could have a poll and when it comes to the semis, you could revert to no polls and people posting their choices.

[Str8Shooter]

I don't see how things are really getting heated. There's been plenty of back and forth discussion, but surely that's the point? I know in the Cena v Savage thread, myself and Daz and Messiah were all posting essays at each other, but I don't think any of us came away from it with hurt feelings or thinking any less of anyone else. It's just a bit of fun after all. But the fun is in the debating. If you don't respond to what anyone else says then it's not a discussion, it's just 30 people in the same room, all of them just talking to themselves.

I meant more the Jericho/Bret thread, I think that was the one thread that may have turned a bit into the negative back and forth where the actual thoughts may have taken a bit of a back seat.

The rest have pretty much been good. The Daz/Messiah debate was a perfect example of the good kind of debate and back and forth that we're looking for.

[Chewy]

I adore the idea that we may end up voting in a best ever wrestler that no one actually thinks is the best ever wrestler.

[Everlong]

I adore the idea that we may end up voting in a best ever wrestler that no one actually thinks is the best ever wrestler.

[UTK]

I vote but don't comment because I care, but not nearly enough to bother typing.