100 Greastest List (update)

For those that may have missed or just don't remember here's how the list looks currently:

Top 50
1 Rakim
2 LL Cool J
3 Outkast
4.Kool G Rap
5.KRS-One/BDP
6.Run DMC
7.Ice Cube
8.NWA
9.Public Enemy
10.2Pac
11. Big Daddy Kane
12. Scarface
13. Nas
14. A Tribe Called Quest
15. Jay-Z
16. Notorious BIG
17. Geto Boys
18. Wu Tang Clan
19. Pete Rock and CL Smooth
20. Enimem
21. Common

Top 100
51. Ice-T
52. MC Lyte
53. Snoop Dogg
54. Slick Rick
55. Heavy D

Nominated
Stestasonic

So Kev, how did you do this. Like I know a few of those dudes got like 8 votes top 50, 6 top 100, and 3 neither. So that means that they are top 100, not top 50. How did you count those up?

The majority rules...

Do you think that makes sense?


Anyway, the majority is not top 50, so why would they get top 50?

Yeah, if the majority vote them in a spot it rules...how else fairly is there to do it without getting to deep?

I'm not trying to start shit...I'm just saying, in the example I gave the majority voted top 100, and that's not too deep is it?

No, thats what i'm doing if more votes are in the top 50 than they are top 50. Is that what you are saying?

in his example there were 17 total votes, and 9 of them did not think they deserved top 50 status. I think that is his point.

yeah, that's what i am saying terry..

But what does that mean when majority rules? Is what i'm saying not making sense?

You're not taking the negative vote into account Kev, the neither option. Yeah, in Steve's example, more people voted top 50 than any other category, but the majority of people didn't think the artist belonged in the top 50, because adding up the two others, they're greater. If majority rules, then really, that person should be in the top 100, not top 50.

I suppose, unless you have the raw number saved somewhere, it can't be fixed if that's the case. It's something you can consider from here on out though.

Nah, I like Kev's rule better

if 6 say 100, 3 say 50, and 10 say no - I think it should be no

well yeah, thats cuz no is the majority. kevs rule makes no sense. If 100 peeps say 50, 99 say 100 and 99 say no is that artist top 50??

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

Nah, I like Kev's rule better

if 6 say 100, 3 say 50, and 10 say no - I think it should be no

It would still be no the way Steve is saying it, because you have 9 at least top 100, but 10 neithers. So the neithers would have it, the person wouldn't be in.

That's bullshit logic IMO Jason. You can't group the negatives or the positives... a top 100 vote is not a negative.

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

That's bullshit logic IMO Jason. You can't group the negatives or the positives... a top 100 vote is not a negative.

Why can't you? The top 100 vote is saying that person shouldn't be in the top 50. That is a negative in that regard. It's also a positive, in that they should be in 51-100. It's a swing vote sort of. That's completely logical.

The lack of logic comes in this - when will top 100 be a no or a yes?

So with it is 9 votes for top 50, 9 for top 100, and 1 for neither we should do top 100?

But when it is 9 for top 50, 1 for top 100, and 9 for neither we should do top 100 as well?

It's bullshit because it is not objective to decide which way it swings.

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

The lack of logic comes in this - when will top 100 be a no or a yes?

So with it is 9 votes for top 50, 9 for top 100, and 1 for neither we should do top 100?

But when it is 9 for top 50, 1 for top 100, and 9 for neither we should do top 100 as well?

I see no lack of logic.

In the first example. 9 people think top 50. 10 people think not top 50. Top 100 has it.

In the second. 9 people think top 50. 10 people think at least top 100. 9 people think neither. Top 100 has it.

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

It's bullshit because it is not objective to decide which way it swings.

It's completely objective, it's just math.

I see a complete lack of logic when more people vote for top 50 or neither... and your system makes it a top 100

that is not what would represent the forum's choice.

The way it should be (though it would take forever) is to tally every vote, then at the end, place everyone into a place based on a points system type thing. 2 points for a top 50 vote, 1 for a top 100, and 0 for a niether

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

I see a complete lack of logic when more people vote for top 50 or neither... and your system makes it a top 100

that is not what would represent the forum's choice.

Then you don't understand logic. I can't say anything else. It's just math. You have to consider, the top 50 is within the top 100. When people vote top 50, they're also voting top 100. And you also have to consider that the neither is an actively negative vote. If the for top 50 and neither vote are the same, they effectively cancel each other out. The remaining vote is a top 100.

yeah shon, I was going to suggest that, but then you can't control how many people vote for each poll
say by the time we reach 100 we have 1000 members so someone might get top 50 then based on that system when maybe the majority vioted neither.

Don't try to talk down to me Jason with your bullshit bitching and whining about Kev's poll since day one.

There is no fucking logic in that system.

It is illogical for 10 people want one thing, ten people want another thing - and then you devise a system to give them something entirely different.

Where is the logic there?

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

Don't try to talk down to me Jason with your bullshit bitching and whining about Kev's poll since day one.

There is no fucking logic in that system.

It is illogical for 10 people want one thing, ten people want another thing - and then you devise a system to give them something entirely different.

Where is the logic there?

I just explained. I'm not trying to talk down, but it's simple math.

You don't understand that the top 100 vote has to have a set fucking value. You can not switch it from being a vote for top 100 one minute and then a vote against top 50 the next minute - that is the illogical aspect of your proposed system.

I'm not switching it. It always means the same thing. A yes vote for top 100, a no vote for the top 50. That's what happens when you set up the poll like this, it is set.

"It is illogical for 10 people want one thing, ten people want another thing - and then you devise a system to give them something entirely different. "

That's what the points system would clear up

let me try this one last fucking way for your slow ass:

YOU CAN NOT COUNT NEITHER AS A VOTE AGAINST TOP 50 BUT FOR TOP 100!

And that is what your system is doing.

In a scenario where 6 people vote top 50, 3 people vote top 100, and 4 people vote neither your system would choose top 100 - which is not correct since the majority either wanted top 50 or neither - and yet you manipulate the votes to award the least requested category.

Your system counts a vote for neither as a vote for top 100 and against top 50 at times and that is incorrect.

Look I see what all is saying but gotdamn keeping this simple is the best way I think. Muthaphuckas would get to many chances with the system Jason is saying or some would vote neither just to keep up with the top 100 if they want to make sure they don't make it in the top 50.

Now the system you are talking about Jason would be great if we put them in order...maybe something we can do after we establish the top 100 and you or someone else can run that one and keep up with all the numbers.

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

let me try this one last fucking way for your slow ass:

YOU CAN NOT COUNT NEITHER AS A VOTE AGAINST TOP 50 BUT FOR TOP 100!

And that is what your system is doing.

No, it is not, you're still not getting it.

Quote :

In a scenario where 6 people vote top 50, 3 people vote top 100, and 4 people vote neither your system would choose top 100 - which is not correct since the majority either wanted top 50 or neither - and yet you manipulate the votes to award the least requested category.

Your system counts a vote for neither as a vote for top 100 and against top 50 at times and that is incorrect.

What you're missing is that the top 50 people, also want top 100. These aren't 3 distinct options, Top 50 is within the top 100, a top 50 vote, is also a top 100 vote. In your scenario, 9 people want top 100. 6 people want top 50. 4 people want neither. Top 100 is the majority vote.

no, top 50 does not mean top 100

it means top 50.

and it is not fair to those who vote top 50 for you to manipulate the vote that way.

"What you're missing is that the top 50 people, also want top 100. These aren't 3 distinct options, Top 50 is within the top 100. In your scenario, the majority of the people, 9, want top 100. 6 people want top 50. 4 people want neither. Top 100 is the majority vote."

Exactly. But, as Kev is saying, that would take a lot of effort

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

no, top 50 does not mean top 100

it means top 50.

and it is not fair to those who vote top 50 for you to manipulate the vote that way.

I'm not manipulating anything. Top 50 is within the top 100. If someone is #20 on someones greatest ever list, they are both top 50, and top 100.

OK.

So in your system a vote for top 50 is a vote for top 50 and top 100.

A vote for top 100 is a vote against top 50 but for top 100

And a vote for neither is a vote against top 50 and against top 100

is all that correct?

Yes!!! SRP, put it this way. Picture your number 49 of all time. Would you be that pissed to have him/her/them at #51?

No, but I would be pissed if

17 people voted top 50 - 1 person voted top 100 - and 0 voted neither

and according to that system that means someone will be top 100...

17 votes for top 50 and 17 for top 100 - plus one extra for top 100...

means 18 for top 100 and only 17 for top 50... makes no sense to me.

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

No, but I would be pissed if

17 people voted top 50 - 1 person voted top 100 - and 0 voted neither

and according to that system that means someone will be top 100...

17 votes for top 50 and 17 for top 100 - plus one extra for top 100...

means 18 for top 100 and only 17 for top 50... makes no sense to me.

It doesn't mean that, because the top 50 votes would be weighted. It's like what Shon was talking about with his number system earlier. Think of it as Yes-Yes (top 50), Yes-No (top 100), No-No (Neither). The Yes-Yes & No-No are both stronger responses than the Yes-No.

It really is easier than you're making it.

No, you didn't imply a weight system. A weighted system is different that the system you recommended and the system you recommended is bullshit.

I'm fine with shon's weighted system as long as it accounts for the number of votes as well.

RoyceJustShootsNines wrote:

No, you didn't imply a weight system. A weighted system is different that the system you recommended and the system you recommended is bullshit.

I'm fine with shon's weighted system as long as it accounts for the number of votes as well.

I did imply it, you just didn't get it, I guess because I didn't spell it out in numbers.

No you didn't imply it jason - if you can point out where you said a top 50 vote counts for more points I'd love to read it.

It doesn't matter if he said it, it's just logical lol

no its not logical - his system as he stated was bullshit - and he had to amend it to your weighted system for it to make any sense.

Anyways, for any weighted system to make sense you have to add up all the points and divide by the number of people who voted and compare the averages to come up with an accurate 1-100 list

I didn't spell it out in numbers because I thought the logic was clear. If t was illogical, why did Kev, Shon, and Steve get it, but not you?

"Anyways, for any weighted system to make sense you have to add up all the points and divide by the number of people who voted and compare the averages to come up with an accurate 1-100 list"

That's what Jason was saying, lol. Except he didn't use actually numbers; more of a mean/median thing

No
Jason said that when 8 people vote top 50, 6 people vote top 100, and 3 people vote neither - then it should be top 100 - those were his fucking words so you're a fucking idiot if you think that translates to a weighted system like I described.

It's like I said, there are multiple answers implied in each vote. Is this person top 50? Is this person top 100? So, the options break down like so:

Yes-Yes (top 50), Yes-No (top 100), No-No (Neither)

Obviously, Yes-Yes or No-No votes are less ambiguous, and carry more weight logically. I wasn't using a point system, cause frankly this math is even more simple this way, no division involved, just quick and simple addition work. The point system adds more nuance, then you can actually start to rank people within the top 50, but that might be too much to ask.