Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

[Icehouse] IGDC Tallying and Other Procedures

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 28 Sep 2007 08:38:28 -0700
> From: Dale Sheldon <dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> If they, or anyone, was certain they would prefer a game they hadn't 
> played over one of the ones they had, that can be done; but that that was 
> the case, and how to indicate that, wasn't made really clear for this 
> vote.

So one might have this as a ballot, then:
1) A
2) B, C
4) D, E, F, G
8) H

And the algorithm will handle it? I could certainly make it more clear
that one can send in rankings like that, by merely stating something
like "you may rank games as tied for a particular rank, in which case
the next rank is lowered for each extra game in the tie (e.g. if you
rank three games as tied for first, the next game you list is ranked

> (Really, you could think of your ballot as an 8x8 grid, and you can put 
> either a + or a - in each square, or leave it blank (then the marginal 
> vote table is just the sum off all the ballots) but I hope it's mostly 
> obvious to people how you would go from a ranked list to a +/- grid.)

I could also easily provide such a ballot, as PDF or HTML (to be copied
into the e-mail). I think it might be a BIT much to ask folks, to
consider and mark n^2 boxes (where n is the number of games--eight this
time, but could be ten or even twelve next time: 144 decisions?!).

Hmmm... Which brings up yet-more elements of the IGDC rules to consider:
Should we limit the number of submissions, given that folks have trouble
playing even eight games within a month?

How would we decide the cut-off, given that we mainly want to encourage
creativity, development of solid gameplay, and well-presented rules
(i.e. it seems that a "first come, first served, eight max" limiter
would just make for a lot of old games being submitted or rushed designs
of new ones)?

Should the judging period be longer, perhaps adjusted for the number of
games submitted?