This has been a remarkable seesawing battle and a wonderful thread considering it’s effectively a dead rubber. Thank you all. Two hours left and three points in it: there’s still time to deliver a winning case for either zoo.
I think we'd all love it if @Ebirah766 stopped ignoring the requests for him to explain his extreme vote, especially considering a) his arguments were more in favor of Wroclaw than Berlin, b) in his second post he said he'd be voting Berlin regardless of what Wroclaw's arguments were, and c) he very openly enjoys doing things simply to get a rise out of people... I find it disturbing, frustrating, and a little insulting to everyone on both sides who spent a lot of time and effort making well constructed arguments that we now have a second match here where the winner is determined solely by a little more than highly suspect vote. ~Thylo
Wroclaw does have some experience here, having lost a similarly epic tussle on ectotherms against Burgers in a previous tournament. They’re probably the only two zoos in Europe that could beat Wroclaw on this category.
Well, we aren’t - there’s 3 votes in it. Your votes, if you want to think about it at the margins. What is it that you see that creates a sizeable gap between the two zoos?
That said, were this a contest based on exhibit complexes alone (with sheer size of collection barred from consideration) I reckon a very interesting case could be made for Alpenzoo Innsbruck in this regard, between the terraces of native reptiles and the aquarium complex pulling off something similar to the Odarium, but covering the hydrofauna of the entire Alps rather than a single river.
That's a very interesting point, though it's not a zoo I've visited. Do they work with any inverts? A quick Google doesn't reveal any....
Thematically maybe yes, but the older part of the aquarium really is somewhat cramped and felt somewhat outdated to me. Biodiversitywise a fantastic complex, but not world class...
OK, so since people wanted to get an answer out of me, I think exhibit design is important. I like Berlin's exhibit design more than Wroclaw's more, and for me, that can really make a difference.
Enough to warrant you voting 3-0 for a zoo that everyone (Berlin or Wroclaw supporter) agreed was a contest too close for a clean sweep? Wroclaw easily have better exhibit design in the Afrykarium and Odrarium. The Terrarium may not be mind-blowing in terms of exhibit design but Berlin’s Aquarium, whilst impressive, lacks the modern touch of the Afrykarium...
In this situation I prefer the more... formulaic design of the Berlin Aquarium. I have not seen pictures of Wroclaw's exhibits, but I am most likely sure it's not in that same type.
Given these above statements, your assertions that " Berlin....just have so many advantages over Wroclaw" and that you "like Berlin's exhibit design more than Wroclaw's more" can be seen as the utterly meaningless hypocrisies that they are......
Named so because they paid for the exhibit (Monsanto is headquartered in the city). I suppose maybe it's an attempt at assuaging guilt? But yeah, rubs me the wrong way a bit every time I see it
@Ebirah766 was the sole determining vote on this match. He ignored everyone, including you, when asked to explain his insane 3-0 sweep. His admitting that he's never seen any photos of Wroclaw's exhibits means that he never bothered to look at any of the posts both in favor or even against Wroclaw (since the majority of photos of Wroclaw's exhibits/enclosures were included in posts arguing against the zoo). He even posted earlier on saying he knew nothing about Wroclaw (again, meaning he refused to read arguments in favor of it) and said that he'd be voting for Berlin regardless of what Wroclaw had to offer. Those are direct violations of your own voting rules. It's very obvious what happened here, even more so than in the Bronx v Leipzig match, and yet you continue to blame those calling out the unfair voting as being the ones leaving "a sour taste" on these matches. I spend a lot of my free time formulating and writing these arguments trying to enjoy the game and play properly and it's a bit disheartening to have one or two individuals come in randomly and skew the entire match in a thinly veiled attempt to get their zoo of choice to the top, only to then be reprimanded and told I'm ruining the game when I and others call out said behavior. What's the point of the conversation looking as though the match went smoothly if someone can still come in at any time and ruin the outcome unchallenged? ~Thylo
I've seen this specific line used in a bunch of these contests with a close win, but I thoroughly disagree. Surely in matches this close everyone's vote can be (and is) the "sole determining vote"? Ebirah766 voted for the zoo that he thought deserved the win, based on the ectotherm category, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that his vote was a tactical one wanting to offset the future match-ups - I really think suggesting he broke any rules is a stretch. Furthermore, I'd argue it's really becoming quite tiring that every time a close match occurs people have to suggest others are breaking rules... 37 people voted in this poll. Not all of those 37 people commented on why they voted for what they voted, and that was never a requirement for being allowed to vote in this poll. Why is it a problem when one member doesn't explain his vote 'properly' enough, even though he has dedicated three posts to explaining why he voted that way?
