Like everyone else, I enjoyed GP's moral case, and I certainly believe (much more so than I did before) that this kind of work is something zoos should be doing. But, I am unconvinced that I see it as relevent to the question before us today, in the same way that I would be pretty sceptical if Detroit had a fantastic collection of rare domestic dog breeds on display and someone told me they 'counted' for the carnivore round.
Also having the poll results visible makes this much easier and more likely. When it comes to the "has to win because it's famous" zoos this will probably be an obvious effect.
To offer a counter-view, if the round was ungulates and the zoo in question had a fantastic display of domestic hoofstock from a certain region or around the world (like at Sedgwick County Zoo in Kansas, for example), I *would* count that towards my decision, although I definitely wouldn't weight it as heavily as breeding endangered hoofstock.
Since criteria is entirely up to me for my vote, species totals, diversity and uniqueness will make up the overwhelming majority of my process. 12 species at Detroit compared to 26 at Berlin was how I came to my initial 3-0 vote. Although after reading through this thread I've decided to change my vote into 2-1 Berlin. I do have to consider Detroit for having my first and only Harp seal. Berlin similarly only produced 1 mammal lifer on my first visit (Narrow-striped mongoose). I also appreciate the exhibition dominance Detroit has over Berlin.
First of all, tactical voting is explicitly stated to be outside the rules of the game and I hope people pause to consider whether that is indeed what they are doing when they vote. Of course, we do operate on the honour system. Second, the public voting is, in my view, an integral part of the game model precisely because it can make people more accountable for their vote, rather than being able to anonymously support their personally-favoured zoo. This match isn’t a good example because there’s a genuine (and fascinating!) range of opinions, but there have been other matches where a consensus view swiftly emerged in favour of one zoo, and voters who had swum against that tide were asked to explain their reasons for doing so. Some might choose to change their votes, others might give their reasoning, but it’s an element of the game that wouldn’t be possible without public voting.
I do like the visible voting for those exact reasons (and I like to always provide my reason for my vote, even if it is a weak reason). I just think there are going to be some iffy rounds for certain zoos...
If people remember that it’s just a game, with no real-world accolade for their favourite zoo at stake then we should be fine.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is the score tabulated? There are currently 35 votes in this match-up and thus, when you posted the comment above, how did you come up with a 41-40 score? Also, does anyone actually vote strategically? Does that mean people would vote for a particular zoo just because they happen to prefer that zoo over the other, regardless of what the specific match-up is for the round? That would be silly and ethically wrong.
There have been more votes, and some changed votes since then. The score is currently 55-50 in Detroit’s favour. Detroit gets to 55 as follows: 6 x 3 votes (18) 13 x 2 votes (26) 11 x 1 vote (11) 18 + 26 + 11 = 55. There’s a couple of ways that people could vote strategically, which I won’t spell out precisely because I don’t necessarily want to explain why they would work! But as a general rule, if people are trying to vote to obtain a certain outcome, rather than based on a genuine consideration of the zoos’ strengths in the given category, then they are not playing the game correctly.
I've voted 2-1 for Berlin, mainly because of the collection held. Detroit get a point mainly for Arctic Ring Of Life, and I've stuck with this vote since the poll was posted despite the persuasive arguments in Detroit's favour.
@ThylacineAlive you want to know why I voted for Berlin? You want the truth? Seriously: see @Coelacanth18 's splendid reply. I rest my case.
I'm voting 2-1 for Berlin. I visited Detroit today (and have never visited Berlin) but Berlin clearly has the superior collection. Detroit may have great exhibits, but has a whopping 14 less species than Berlin. Also, the Polar Bear may enjoy a nice exhibit, but it is rarely seen. What's the point of having an underwater tunnel if you never see the bear?
No, they’re not. This is the group stage. Berlin still has matches against Wroclaw and San Diego Zoo Safari Park with which to qualify for the knockout stages.
I still thought it was supposed to be the 17th. Ah ok, I seem to have gotten mixed up over how the groupings all worked. Glad to hear Berlin has additional chances to win! ~Thylo
As a matter of fact, Ingrid the Wonder Cat, who is lying right next to me as I type this, is an alumna of one of the Detroit Zoo's adoption fairs.
