On Jul 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, David Artman wrote:
Apparently 2006 didn't have a single "quarterly" competition; we
shouldn't let 2007 go by without at least one contest!
Should I take charge, if no one else is doing so at the moment?
Yeah, the last time we discussed this was a back in April, and I
offered to run it. However, both life, and setting up the Rabbit Wiki
intervened, and I haven't had a chance to get around to it since. I
keep on meaning to work on it, and was really hoping to get it
running before Origins so people could do playtesting then, but
missed that deadline.
If you would like, I can run it, as we discussed back in April. It
might be nice for me to do that, since I don't have any game designs
I would want to enter. If I do run it, my hard deadline for actually
getting everything organized is July 27th, since I'm going away on
vacation for 2 weeks, which would be a good submission period, and
then I could start the testing and voting period afterwards. This
would also put GenCon right in the middle of the voting period, which
I think would be good for getting people to playtest the games
(usually the hardest part of an IGDC is getting enough people to
Your proposed rules seem pretty good, though I would do things a
little differently. I would just let people post their entries on a
wiki page for submissions, not do things through email; the only part
that really needs to done through email is voting.
Also, for voting, Zarf had some python scripts for doing Condorcet/
ranked-pairs voting that he sent me, and I was in the middle of
trying to get up and running again (they're based on some outdated
python libraries, and need to be worked on). Ranked pairs voting is,
I believe, a better system than instant runoff voting, since it gives
you the game that would win in any pairwise vote between two games
(if you chose any two of games, it gives you the game that would win
in a vote between those two, unless there is a cycle of games that
would each beat each other in such a situation). Instant runnoff
doesn't have this property, and there are some cases in instant
runoff where the strategic thing to do is vote something lower than
you actually believe it should be in order to get a better outcome in
the final vote. Zarfs scripts handle partial ballots just fine, so if
I can get them working they'd probably be the best thing to use.