Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

RE: [Icehouse] Publishing only a winner and a runner up

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 21 Feb 2008 10:55:52 -0700
> From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   We should make a decision about this, as if we're going to do it, the
> sooner we change the infoboxes on the wiki, the better.

It's not like IHG is swamped with traffic like CNN or something. We have
time to think and to make a considered decision.

First, the complete ballots will always be published on the (Month,
YYYY) IGDC page. That's not open for debate, because that's how people
can confirm that the Coordinator didn't mess with the ballots. So we can
drop consideration of that right now.

Second, because of the above, anyone at any time can figure out what the
relative rankings were. Often, it's obvious just from the raw numbers
(e.g. the stack of 7s and 8s for Gunslinger).

Third, anyone looking at the competition entries ought to realize (if
not totally dim) that there's a broad range of game types, and pyramids
generally attract a certain game type player--thus, a "low" rank is
probably only an indicator of a game that's atypical (particularly, once
someone clicks to check it out and sees that, in fact, it's deep and
clearly thought-out and, incidentally, not much like the other competing

Therefore, tweaking the IGDC InfoBox to obfuscate relative rankings is
sweeping a dead halibut under the carpet: We put "Also Ran: A, B, C, D"
and the IGDC link, and it's one click to answer the question, "Hmm,
wonder how these other games did?"

Next, I automatically put the Box on each page as a matter of procedure;
but it's only the work of about thirty seconds to remove it, if you
don't want it. Thus, one will only see the "stigma" of a low rank if one
happens to (a) look at a page with the box and (b) go on to a low-ranked
page anyway. Put differently, if one clicks to go to a game that looks
interesting, and it has no InfoBox, there's not stigma. Put a third way:
it's only an issue in a (probably rare) corner case; whereas most (the
vast majority of?) users dabbling in new games will be making choices on
what to play from the game name, or based on reading the rules, or based
on available pyramids, or based on theme or mechanics they like, or

Finally, I want my 4th and my 6th, dammit. I worked (fairly) hard on
those ideas, I think they're sound, and I am happy to have my middle
ranks. (Even as, yes, I am well aware than a handful of ballots that
didn't rank me probably cost me second or third.) You know why? Because
*I hung it out there*! Even if I got eighth, I'd proudly put my InfoBox
down, because I had the guts to put myself forward to be judged. In
time, I expect to have a nice range of rank awards--maybe even a coveted
First Place. Perhaps folks will even notice "Hey, this guy does pretty
good in IGDCs" and click my User Page to see all of my designs. AWESOME!
(Why? Because maybe they'll have fun with them, or even be so kind as to
offer feedback or ideas for refinement.)

In closing, I'll suggest an alternative (and a follow-up kudos/promotion
1) Make a Top Three IGDC InfoBox, change the background color or
what-not, and use that if you prefer--don't strip out something that
previous designers have used and (I would presume) want to remain on the
pages that they've put it on! In general, it is bad form to change a
template that's in use on several pages without the consent of all (or
at least most) of those who use it. And as should be obvious, my vote is
a Big-Ass Hell No.
2) I am going to put the Top Three on Existing Games, rather than just
the First Place. That way, the EG page points folks to more, better
games. (Why? Because, in the end, that page and WCIP? are the ones folks
REALLY start from, not some IGDC rank announcement.)

Hope this makes my position clear. In short, what you are proposing is
respectively (a) not possible with our verification process and (b) not
fair to those who are happy as it is: do your own Box and leave our Box
as it is.