Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] IGDC rankings idea

  • From"Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 20 Feb 2008 19:32:13 +0100

  Maybe another partial solution is to release only the top 3 ranked games (or top two), given that the ranks in between can vary wildly with small changes in ballots. This way games that didn't win don't have the stigma on their wiki pages showing that they ended up in a very low rank. Right now, a casual observer that glances at the wiki page of Martian Gunslingers or Virus Fight will probably dismiss them both as crappy games, and  I don't think that is deserved or even what we're looking for with the competition (MG probably got such a low ranking because it's really a 1house game and needed a special deck of cards that was not available...). If just the 2 winners are released on the wiki, then casual observers might be more ready to try the other games. In the end, what we want is that games are played and feedback is given, don't we?

  And I'd like to hear more opinions on the Eurovision-like method. It's a bit like saying what are the top 5 games for each judge, and giving 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point to each.

  BTW, I also like dividing the score into categories. Sounds like a nice idea.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Dale Sheldon <dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jorge Arroyo wrote:

> The article is interesting, but with such a low number of voters as we get,
> is there a method that is non-exploitable?

No method is not-exploitable; unless there's only one voter (and then it's
a dictatorship.)

> Is there an article that states the minimum number of voters each method
> need to get reliable results?

I'm not sure how to answer this.  More is always better, but I'm not
certain what sort of metric you could use to measure "reliability".

> Applied to the Icehouse contest what if each judge were to give points
> from 1 to 5 to 5 entries, how would it work? Would it be fair?

Depends what you mean by "fair" :)

I feel (again, this is MHO), that the Condorcet criteria is a very
important one for an election method to satisfy; most point-based methods
(and instant runoff voting and plurality voting) don't meet it.  The trick
with Condorcet is that it isn't complete: Condorcet alone only tells us,
in this election, that Martian Gunslingers shouldn't win; it can't decide
among the others.  It was a VERY close election.  Ranked pairs is a
so-called "Condorcet completion" method, a tie-breaker if you will, that
tries to pick its way through the sticky minefield of a Condorcet
"circular ambiguity"; at that point, the only gurantee is that a lot of
voters will be pissed off ;)

Icehouse mailing list