[Icehouse] IGDC rankings idea

[Benjamin Kleber]

Trusting that voters add their numbers and end up with the right total
points, I think that sounds like a tremendously sensible system.


Benjamin

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Jeff Zeitlin
<icehouse at freelancetraveller.com> wrote:
> It's been pointed out how a small number of ballots in the current
>  scheme can cause wide variance in the final outcomes of the competition.
>  Elsewhere, I've encountered a system that MAY have the happy side effect
>  of reducing the chances of that happening.
>
>  Currently, the ballot requires a straight ranking: I like Zendo better
>  than Ice Towers better than Martian Backgammon better than Spicklehead.
>  It doesn't take into account that a particular voter may feel that Zendo
>  is only marginally better in his opinion than Ice Towers, but both are
>  WAY COOL, and that Spicklehead is WAY below Martian Backgammon.  His
>  vote is completely countered by someone who feels "Eh" about all four
>  games, and rates them Spicklehead, Martian Backgammon, Ice Towers,
>  Zendo.
>
>  The system I encountered says "You have x points.  Allocate them as you
>  see fit among the choices." X is a function of how many choices there
>  are on the ballot - the particular example I encountered said "two
>  points per choice on the ballot".
>
>  Suppose the IGDC says 'ten points per choice on the ballot'.  In the
>  example above, each voter can share 40 points among the four choices.
>  So, the first voter goes with Z=20, I=12, M=6, S=2.  The second voter
>  goes with S=12, M=11, I=9, Z=8.
>
>  The two votes no longer counter each other; the strong feelings of the
>  first voter "weigh more heavily" than the generally neutral feelings of
>  the second.
>
>  Does this have possibilities?
>  _______________________________________________
>  Icehouse mailing list
>  Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
>  http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>