Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • From"Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateSat, 23 Feb 2008 21:53:34 +0100

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:01 PM, David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry so long to reply....

> From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> say we officially get only a winner and a runner up from those
> unless in a future competition, we really get many more voters.

This suggestion is merely a weak obfuscation--it's trivially easy to
check the ranks and glean the same information you'd "hide" by modifying
the InfoBox.

To say we've used the voter data to get just a winner and two runner ups is not to hide data. It's just using the data in a way that is more useful, given that there are too few voters.

> I wouldn't be proud of a 4th place that I know could have easily been
a 7th
> or a 2nd. There's too much power placed on any single voter with the
> voters we got this time.

Then the answer is to acquire more voters.

That's a good answer for next contest. What about this one?

> In a competition, people will assume the rankings go from best game to
> worst, and that is clearly not the case in this competition.

Wow. I'd smile when I say that (though I'd never say that). You presume
much, if you'd (a) cast dispersions upon the rankings made by our judges
or (b) ask a winner to step off the podium position which he has earned.

I only say that one voter has too much power to change the final ratings (from first to last). I'm not asking the winner to step off. Never said that. In fact, if one thing is totally clear from the votings is that M12 is the winner and MG is the looser. As it has been stated before (not by me) the rest was very close. I just say we cannot make a reliable order from first to last because a small difference in one or two votes would change it dramatically. (as proven).

> there. In the contest page you can put all the info, but then explain
> the results are not reliable.

It doesn't strike me as effective promotion of the IGDC or encouragement
for judging, to have a statement that the rank tallying method is not
reliable. It's also generally not true. The CRP method is reliable if we
have enough votes. Ergo, gaining votes--not tearing down the comp--is
the correct angle of attack.

To say we need more voters to get reliable results is not tearing down the competition. We just admit we didn't get enough data to be able to reliably rank the games from first to last.

> My perception is that as long as we get few voters in the contest, the
> results will be mostly random. I'm not going to throw my designs into
> lottery draw to see if I'm lucky enough to get a nice rating. Sorry.

It's not mandatory. No one is required to participate. Stop doing so, if
it brings you pain.

Not exaclt pain, but disappointment. yes.

I think you've kinda lost sight of the point of the comp: to get
playtesters, refine rules and presentation, and make more good games
which "fill out" IHG.org. "Winning" is incidental, as is "losing." In
fact, if you really thought about it, you'd see that a lower-ranked game
is going to draw more feedback and refinement than a higher-ranked
(presumably "finished") game. Rejoice!

Ok, I'll tell how happyI'm with results once we've got all the feedback in. It's too soon to judge the results as not many people have given feedback yet. Right now, all I know is we've got a ranking from 1st to 8th that is not totally reliable. I'm not happy about that. It's not that I'm not happy about winning, but I don't think VF deserves a 7th place (that's ofcourse my subjective opinion).

> we're going to continue getting an unjustified hall of fame/shame each
> contest, count me out. There are other ways to promote and get people
> play your games, and I'd rather find those other ways. Even just
> the games to the wiki seems a better idea right now...

I repeat what I posted in the other thread: look at how many IGDC games
are refined, versus how many "tossed up" games are half-baked, confused,
or not even really started (I am guilty of having all three of those
levels of incompletion at this very moment).

Again, leave if you want to do so; but don't expect those of us enjoying
IGDC participation to pack up when you've gone.

Each person will do whatever they want. Don't assume I'm expecting people to leave, or that I'm leaving the icehouse community. For now I'll just think of other ways to get feedback for games. Look at the piecepack competition I just started ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/294818 ). It's about writting reviews. If that works out fine, then maybe we could do something similar for the icehouse system.


As for the IGDC InfoBox: make your own "Top Three" box, or remove the
existing one from your game's page. Do not presume to change the
existing one--a thing of tradition which I, for one am glad to display
on my 6th- and 4th-place games. Why would I be happy about such a
"disparagement" as 6th? Well, that box shows that I hung it out there
and tried, when scores of others sat and watched. I don't want to be
listed as some kind of "also ran," hiding the fact that I happened to
get 4th or 6th for any one of a bajillion reasons (number of ballots,
common preferences of the types of gamers drawn to Icehouse, game type,
difficulty to master, whatever).

If you change the {{IGDCsssYYYY}} templates, I'll change them back; so
just drop that crusade, please, for both of our sakes. You just can't
tell others what to display on their pages....

Wow!!!!! what a divisive attitude. I'm trying to get the community to agree on something and look at you with your "I'll do what I want and change them back" attitude. You must really hate this thing called democracy...

If the community decides to change the infobox, it will be changed. If you want to display a different infobox on your game no one will force you not to, but then it's you that are going against the wishes of the community.



Icehouse mailing list