> 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 games). 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 whatever. 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 notion): 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. David