Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

RE: [Icehouse] IGDC rankings idea

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 20 Feb 2008 10:39:54 -0700
> 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....