well it's not as though there's anything magical in doing a little math. he just helped you out with it, is all. And, i mean, if a bunch of people gang up and decide to push to make one game ranked really high .... well ... i mean ... isn't that the point? Popular games get voted highly and receive some praise? On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, David Molnar <theonlymolnar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dale, > I'd just like to point out that you express a concern about the effects of > voting strategically under the Condorcet or ranked pairs method, then you > propose a different system and tell people how they should game it. > > David > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Dale Sheldon <dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> Tangentially related, since a year and a half ago (when I aggresively >> argued about how we should count the votes for these things) I've done a lot >> of reading on voting systems (William Poundstone's "Gaming the Vote" in >> particular), that has changed my opinion about Condorcet and ranked pairs. >> >> I'd now like to advocate for score voting (every voter gives a score on >> some scale (0-5, 0-9, 0-99; doesn't really matter*), highest average score >> wins**.) > > >> >> [snip] >> >> *Strategically, you should always give your favorite candidate the highest >> score and your least-favorite the lowest possible score (usually 0), even if >> you don't consider them to be the best (or worst) game _ever_; you're only >> comparing the games within the contest, not all games across all time. >> >> >> -- >> Dale Sheldon >> dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse > > -- It's always a long day. 86400 doesn't fFit into a short.