> From: Dale Sheldon <dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Instincts are flawed. Sure, I'm just saying that something in the back of my mind "likes" the notion of point allocation over ranking. It *seems* more nuanced--in that it permits more "relative" ranking than "better, worse, tied"--and that nuance *seems* more powerful for getting at the best possible ranks across several ballots. > I did this vote's solution by hand, in between fits of work. I can show > you how, if it'll improve your opinion of the method :) Not at this time, thanks. :) That was really just a minor point--I trust the Dark Masters. Sure, I'd like to eventually grok the CRP method and be able to do it by hand (or with script). But the A&T method would let me do such trivially, with a spreadsheet. I defer to those who can "see the numbers at work." If we are going to compare methods, to find one that suits us, then I see these as the priorities: 1) Stability - Is not easily manipulated by a bloc of voters. 2) Flexibility - Freedom to vote for some or all games means more ballots, in the end. 3) Openness - Anyone can judge; no cabal or panel of judges. Further, I am not adverse to a significant tweak to the competition, to more-readily achieve the IGDC Goals. Require feedback to provide a rank; weight rankings based on the (claimed) number of games played; something. You might notice that "fair" doesn't appear in the above priorities for a voting method: rather than bog down in the semantics of "fair," I'd rather unpack the IGDC Goals and look at ways they can be better served (if not by a competition, then by what?). Perhaps we need to begin to dictate "how to judge," rather than leaving it up to subjective vagueness? Maybe have folks give points to games based on a set of criteria, and use those points totals to establish the ranks. Yes, that's still "gamable" or "biasable," but perhaps it would dampen the tendency for a game-type preference to dominate rankings. For instance, suppose a bunch of BGG folks decide to participate--real die-hard grognards. I suspect that any game which is, say, a miniatures or RPG game is basically doomed, at that point: it's the wrong game type, and there's no judging constraints. HOWEVER, that could be dampened, if every judge had to rank on, say, these criteria: * Rules Clarity (10 points) - Could you play immediately, did anything confuse? * Conformity to Restriction (20 points) - How much did the game embrace the design restriction (or did it give lip-service to it)? * Fun Factor (20 points) - Was it fun? * Creativity (20 points) - Was it unique, or was it a reskinning of an existing game using pyramids? * Replayability (20 points) - Is it worth playing more than a few times? Is it a "lifetime to master" game or something you play for a bit then forget forever? * Looniness (10 points) - Does it encourage the players to invest in their pyramids collection? Does it reflect well on the Looney Labs and their social ideals? See what I mean? Such criteria make the judges think about more than just "I like board games, so this wins" or "I hate randomness so this loses." Thoughts? David