> From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx> > I'll start. This system is even more exploitable because one person > giving all their points to one entry (a strategy that I wouldn't fault > a designer for taking) is pretty much guaranteed to completely > override anyone with a more moderate opinion. First, I don't think we'd change to allowing designers to rank their own games, would we? Maybe we have to let them self-rank because such a Allocate-&-Tally (A&T) method DOES punish a game with no points assigned to it. Or maybe we have to forbid designer ballots? (Which this time would have meant, like, 11 or 12 ballots total--five designers abstained this time around anyway.) Second, what about augmenting it with the rule that a judge must allocate at least 1 point to every entry? For example, say we got 8 games, which means 16 points; the worst/best one can do to skew the points allocations is: G1 - 9 G2 - 1 G3 - 1 G4 - 1 G5 - 1 G6 - 1 G7 - 1 G8 - 1 Maybe that would encourage more play; or, at worst, a judge will just give straight-ones to anything they don't get around to playing. Hmmm... or maybe that's just a "push"--in effect, every game starts with 1 point and there's really only 8 points to allocate (i.e. the free point makes itself moot)? So maybe we'd need... ah, hell, I HATE math. HELP! Third, regarding the notion that there's nothing one can do to avoid "the fix" in any balloting system that does comparison/ranking.... Well, actually there is one thing: peer pressure. Even if someone uses a code name on their ballot, the community can see if someone does a 9-and-all-1s ballot, and might heckle said judge. Sure, a code name hides identity; but it isn't a shield against shame. More thoughts, please. I think I am liking this A&T points method more than CRP, purely based on instinct and the fact that I can actually do my own solution with it! Although the "guaranteed 1 point" thing is now seeming shaky.... David