Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Conaill" data-source="post: 1735975" data-attributes="member: 1264">I'd prefer to call it "destructive testing" of the Ennies <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />There's a long history in fields such as cryptography of trying to find loopholes by which you can exploit a system, in order to come up with a system which is harder to exploit. The primary requirement for this approach to work is *openness*. Right now, I don't know if there's more than 2 or 3 people that know exactly how the Ennies are scored... Check out some of the discussion between AaronLoeb and myself on pages 4-6 of this thread. I think we both agree that letting people assign an actual *score* to the different choices (whether it's 1-10 or 1-5) is overkill, making it much more likely that some people will try to manipulate the voting. On the other hand, allowing only one vote per category is too restrictive as well.Two reasonable compromises are to allow multiple votes per category (approval voting), or to *rank* the choices within a category (with different methods available to deal with unranked choices, and to derive a final winner based on those rankings). Both of these approaches are much less open to manipulation than the current one, and are less biased against "the little guy" than one vote per category....</blockquote>

Verification