On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, David Artman wrote:
* Every judge (which is to say, anyone who wants to) gives every game
an integer score vote from 0 to 99, or a "score" of X, meaning "no
OK, this goes to the wiki, right? That's the judges instructions.
Yes. You'll note is much simpler than the old instructions :)
So, for practical purposes, this X thing could just be a blank, right?
So long as it's not treated like a zero (0)?
So being scored at all is a tie-breaker? Seems sort of odd, to me.
The hope is it won't come up; but the number of votes is the only other
piece of information we have. We could skip the tie-breaker and just say
equal scores means it's truly tied.
On that note, what do you think about throwing out mono-votes? I recall
getting a ballot or two back in the day with only one game on it, ranked
#1. I counted them, but it felt REALLY seedy. Like I was enabling. Then
again, if folks know we throw out such ballots, they'll just pad
I think they would, yes, if their goal was just to artificially inflate
one contender. But artificial inflation is, supposedly, what the soft
zeroes will handle. (Perhaps I should mention that this has never been
tried before...) If people really only have an opinion on one game, I
say, accept their opinion.
Really, if you want to "cheat" this contest, the way to do it is to
convince all your friends to vote (or to just create a bunch of extra
email accounts if you don't have friends); it's not like we have a voter
registration procedure. And if we're not going to take steps against
/that/ (and I don't think we should), there's probably not much to gain
worrying about mono-votes.