[Icehouse] Publishing only a winner and a runner up

[Jorge Arroyo]

I'm ok with the ballots being published, and It's clear anyone can use those
ballots however they wish to get out many different lists of ranks. But I
say we officially get only a winner and a runner up from those ballots,
unless in a future competition, we really get many more 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 number
voters we got this time.

Third, anyone looking at the competition entries ought to realize (if
> not totally dim) that there's a broad range of game types, and pyramids
> generally attract a certain game type player--thus, a "low" rank is
> probably only an indicator of a game that's atypical (particularly, once
> someone clicks to check it out and sees that, in fact, it's deep and
> clearly thought-out and, incidentally, not much like the other competing
> games).


I disagree. People generally put a lot of importance into rankings. Just
look at discussions on BGG and you'll see many people trust the rankings
more than anything else. Only after they've been burned buying some hight
ranked game that they hated, do they realize that rankings are very
subjective...

In a competition, people will assume the rankings go from best game to
worst, and that is clearly not the case in this competition. The infobox is
too small to properly explain this, so I think the information shouldn't be
there. In the contest page you can put all the info, but then explain how
the results are not reliable.

Hope this makes my position clear. In short, what you are proposing is
> respectively (a) not possible with our verification process and (b) not
> fair to those who are happy as it is: do your own Box and leave our Box
> as it is.


Fair to those who are happy, eh? Ok. It's easy to be happy when you were on
the lucky end...  and even then, I wouldn't be especially proud of getting a
high rank or even win a contest  with such unreliable results.

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 a
lottery draw to see if I'm lucky enough to get a nice rating. Sorry. If
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 to
play your games, and I'd rather find those other ways. Even just uploading
the games to the wiki seems a better idea right now...

-Jorge

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM, David Artman <david at davidartman.com> wrote:

> > From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo at makasoft.net>
> >   We should make a decision about this, as if we're going to do it, the
> > sooner we change the infoboxes on the wiki, the better.
>
> It's not like IHG is swamped with traffic like CNN or something. We have
> time to think and to make a considered decision.
>
> First, the complete ballots will always be published on the (Month,
> YYYY) IGDC page. That's not open for debate, because that's how people
> can confirm that the Coordinator didn't mess with the ballots. So we can
> drop consideration of that right now.
>
> Second, because of the above, anyone at any time can figure out what the
> relative rankings were. Often, it's obvious just from the raw numbers
> (e.g. the stack of 7s and 8s for Gunslinger).
>
> Third, anyone looking at the competition entries ought to realize (if
> not totally dim) that there's a broad range of game types, and pyramids
> generally attract a certain game type player--thus, a "low" rank is
> probably only an indicator of a game that's atypical (particularly, once
> someone clicks to check it out and sees that, in fact, it's deep and
> clearly thought-out and, incidentally, not much like the other competing
> games).
>
> Therefore, tweaking the IGDC InfoBox to obfuscate relative rankings is
> sweeping a dead halibut under the carpet: We put "Also Ran: A, B, C, D"
> and the IGDC link, and it's one click to answer the question, "Hmm,
> wonder how these other games did?"
>
> Next, I automatically put the Box on each page as a matter of procedure;
> but it's only the work of about thirty seconds to remove it, if you
> don't want it. Thus, one will only see the "stigma" of a low rank if one
> happens to (a) look at a page with the box and (b) go on to a low-ranked
> page anyway. Put differently, if one clicks to go to a game that looks
> interesting, and it has no InfoBox, there's not stigma. Put a third way:
> it's only an issue in a (probably rare) corner case; whereas most (the
> vast majority of?) users dabbling in new games will be making choices on
> what to play from the game name, or based on reading the rules, or based
> on available pyramids, or based on theme or mechanics they like, or
> whatever.
>
> Finally, I want my 4th and my 6th, dammit. I worked (fairly) hard on
> those ideas, I think they're sound, and I am happy to have my middle
> ranks. (Even as, yes, I am well aware than a handful of ballots that
> didn't rank me probably cost me second or third.) You know why? Because
> *I hung it out there*! Even if I got eighth, I'd proudly put my InfoBox
> down, because I had the guts to put myself forward to be judged. In
> time, I expect to have a nice range of rank awards--maybe even a coveted
> First Place. Perhaps folks will even notice "Hey, this guy does pretty
> good in IGDCs" and click my User Page to see all of my designs. AWESOME!
> (Why? Because maybe they'll have fun with them, or even be so kind as to
> offer feedback or ideas for refinement.)
>
> In closing, I'll suggest an alternative (and a follow-up kudos/promotion
> notion):
> 1) Make a Top Three IGDC InfoBox, change the background color or
> what-not, and use that if you prefer--don't strip out something that
> previous designers have used and (I would presume) want to remain on the
> pages that they've put it on! In general, it is bad form to change a
> template that's in use on several pages without the consent of all (or
> at least most) of those who use it. And as should be obvious, my vote is
> a Big-Ass Hell No.
> 2) I am going to put the Top Three on Existing Games, rather than just
> the First Place. That way, the EG page points folks to more, better
> games. (Why? Because, in the end, that page and WCIP? are the ones folks
> REALLY start from, not some IGDC rank announcement.)
>
> Hope this makes my position clear. In short, what you are proposing is
> respectively (a) not possible with our verification process and (b) not
> fair to those who are happy as it is: do your own Box and leave our Box
> as it is.
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.looneylabs.com/pipermail/icehouse/attachments/20080221/e6641872/attachment.htm