On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Christopher Hickman <tophu@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 12:49PM, "David Artman" <david.artman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>Of course, I can go with 0 - 20, also--decent range (can borrow the BGG >>qualifiers, just x2) to avoid ties but not such a huge range as to make the >>values arbitrary (i.e. what make an 88 better than an 85?). > > Like this: > > * 18 - 19: Outstanding. Always want to play and expect this will never change. > * 16 - 17: Excellent game. Always want to play it. I don't see what it buys you to change the numbers. My suggestion was to keep it simple: most people are familiar with a 1-to-10 scale. If you let people who want to be more precise vote with decimal numbers, there will be less of a tie risk (which I think you overestimate anyway). (Note that it's 1-10 and not 0-10. If you need it to be zero-based, just subtract 1 from every vote.) --dougorleans@xxxxxxxxx