[spielfrieks] MCA Retrospectives

[Wei-Hwa Huang [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

One thing I'd be interested in seeing, if Larry is willing, is to see how
these retrospective awards change if people are given a large number of
votes, say 10 or even 100. At really large numbers, where you can vote for
all the games if you want, it starts becoming approval voting instead. I
suspect at that point we would see the inoffensive games with wide appeal
start doing better than the niche games that are favorites among a large
subset but are also hated by some.

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Yeah, a 10 vote election would be similar to the nominations round we have before each final vote. And I've noticed that different kinds of games tend to do well in the two types of elections. During nominations, lighter, more accessible games often do well, but they frequently plummet during the final vote. I interpret this as they being games that the voters like (and therefore are in their top 10), but don't love (which would be necessary for them to get one of the top 3 votes).


I suppose you could combine these two methods in one vote. Let everyone vote for 10 games, but give them 3 super votes, which count double. I could actually kludge the current application to do this kind of voting, although it wouldn't be very elegant looking.

[Mark Johnson [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Ah, that's interesting. That might be closer to the original voting, assuming it had wider participation back then.


-Mark

One thing I'd be interested in seeing, if Larry is willing, is to see how these retrospective awards change if people are given a large number of votes, say 10 or even 100. At really large numbers, where you can vote for all the games if you want, it starts becoming approval voting instead. I suspect at that point we would see the inoffensive games with wide appeal start doing better than the niche games that are favorites among a large subset but are also hated by some.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verbing nouns may weird language, but nouning verbs is a language destroy.

[[e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Were there different rules for the voting when Snoop started this back in '01, Mark? When I took over the administration of the vote in '04, I just continued what appeared to be the rules in use at the time, but I may have inadvertently added or subtracted something.


Larry

[Mark Johnson [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Oh, no, I don't think the rules for voting were even spelled out. It was
just an active email list back then, so I only assumed we had more
participation than we do now. I don't even remember who tallied the votes.
Probably Snoop or Kevin Whitmore, I'd guess.

Post by ***@comcast.net [spielfrieks]
Were there different rules for the voting when Snoop started this back in
'01, Mark? When I took over the administration of the vote in '04, I just
continued what appeared to be the rules in use at the time, but I may have
inadvertently added or subtracted something.
Larry

[Clay Blankenship [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

Post by Wei-Hwa Huang ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
One thing I'd be interested in seeing, if Larry is willing, is to see how
these retrospective awards change if people are given a large number of
votes, say 10 or even 100. At really large numbers, where you can vote for
all the games if you want, it starts becoming approval voting instead. I
suspect at that point we would see the inoffensive games with wide appeal
start doing better than the niche games that are favorites among a large
subset but are also hated by some.
--

I am sure you are right.

I don't want to start an argument about political positions, but I would
like to comment on how this relates to the voting process in an election.
In a crowded field, you will probably get different results if there is
some kind of a runoff. This is how the International Gaming Awards do it.
For example if you have 1 dexterity game with 30% support (as first
choice), and 7 Euros with 10% support, the dexterity game is the clear
winner in a once-around plurality-wins election, but probably not if there
is some form of runoff. (You can tie this in to recent political history I
am sure.) Not that the Spielfrieks Awards need to be that complex, but
IMHO a good political election system should have some process for
consolidating votes from similar candidates. (I think this is the intent
behind a caucus.)

For a gaming awards, there are probably merits to both ways--picking a game
with narrow but intense support, or a game with broad but less passionate
appeal.

[Fraser [e-mail] [spielfrieks]]

My favourite is Hare-Clark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Clark_electoral_system

Or the link for the professional election junkee with a lot of historical
content about Tasmania where Hare-Clark was introduced
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/tas/2006/guide/hareclark.htm

Cheers,

Fraser

Post by Clay Blankenship ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]

Post by Wei-Hwa Huang ***@gmail.com [spielfrieks]
One thing I'd be interested in seeing, if Larry is willing, is to see how
these retrospective awards change if people are given a large number of
votes, say 10 or even 100. At really large numbers, where you can vote for
all the games if you want, it starts becoming approval voting instead. I
suspect at that point we would see the inoffensive games with wide appeal
start doing better than the niche games that are favorites among a large
subset but are also hated by some.
--

I am sure you are right.
I don't want to start an argument about political positions, but I would
like to comment on how this relates to the voting process in an election.
In a crowded field, you will probably get different results if there is
some kind of a runoff. This is how the International Gaming Awards do it.
For example if you have 1 dexterity game with 30% support (as first
choice), and 7 Euros with 10% support, the dexterity game is the clear
winner in a once-around plurality-wins election, but probably not if there
is some form of runoff. (You can tie this in to recent political history I
am sure.) Not that the Spielfrieks Awards need to be that complex, but
IMHO a good political election system should have some process for
consolidating votes from similar candidates. (I think this is the intent
behind a caucus.)
For a gaming awards, there are probably merits to both ways--picking a
game with narrow but intense support, or a game with broad but less
passionate appeal.
--
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." --Helen Keller