Monte on Origins awards and ENnies

[Morrus]

I must be missing a subtlty here. How is giving stuff I hate a 1, and things I like, a 10 (assuming higher is better), cheating?

"Hate" is probably the wrong word to use. If you really do hate it, then of course rating it a "1" is perfectly honest. I think what Michael was trying to get at was strategic voting - a whole bunch of people on Publisher X's messageboard coming along to vote the competition "1" and "their" product "10".

 

[francisca]

"Hate" is probably the wrong word to use. If you really do hate it, then of course rating it a "1" is perfectly honest. I think what Michael was trying to get at was strategic voting - a whole bunch of people on Publisher X's messageboard coming along to vote the competition "1" and "their" product "10".

Ah. I see. I was wearing my tinfoil hat, rather than my Doo-Rag of skullduggery.

 

[Christoph the Magus]

Prove to me that the Origins Awards are worth saving, and I'll be happy to help.

A good way to do this is to produce an award ceremony that doesn't make all involved want to cry and/or shower. Not allowing academy members to vote on categories in which their companies have nominations would be an extra bonus, as well.

--Erik

Well, that's not a very helpful attitude. It's easy to sit back and complain. It's a lot harder to put your money where your mouth is and pitch in to help.

I'm just a regular Joe. I don't care about the Origins awards one way or another. Yeah, if a game I like happens to win I think that's neat, but the awards have never prompted me to buy anything. (Neither have the Ennies, for that matter.) So yeah, they probably do need help. And having bellydancers hand out the awards isn't the kind of help they need. But saying that you'll gladly join the Academy AFTER they fix all of their problems doesn't help either.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ah. I see. I was wearing my tinfoil hat, rather than my Doo-Rag of skullduggery.

That magic item is sooo appearing in my next game.

 

[Conaill]

"Hate" is probably the wrong word to use. If you really do hate it, then of course rating it a "1" is perfectly honest. I think what Michael was trying to get at was strategic voting

Yeah. For example, under the current scheme, putting in a low vote for products you've never heard of before, but abstaining from ones you dislike woudl be considered "strategic voting". I.e. the voting method encourages you to vote in a way that does not fully agree with your real preferences, in order to maximize your outcome.

Ahem...

 

[fusangite]

Conaill,

The voting system you are proposing is a modified variant of STV, a form of proportional representation (basically, you're proposing running it without fractional or random transfers). Proportional systems tend to reflect the diversity of public opinion rather than the general views of the majority. If you favour proportionality here, I would recommend that you advocate for a more mathematically sounds version of STV that incorporates the fractional transfer.

While I happen to be a fan of proportional representation in general and STV in particular, when it comes to politics, I don't think it is really what we want in an awards process. We are looking to express the majority consensus of our community when we give out awards, not to reflect its diversity.

It seems, given that coding is already underway, that it is probably too late to propose switching from AV/IRV to STV at this late date. If you want to back STV next year rather than multi-vote plurality system you did this year, I think it could be an intriguing proposition and one I could be talked into. But I think the boat has sailed on how votes will be counted this year.

 

[Crothian]

Yeah. For example, under the current scheme, putting in a low vote for products you've never heard of before, but abstaining from ones you dislike woudl be considered "strategic voting". I.e. the voting method encourages you to vote in a way that does not fully agree with your real preferences, in order to maximize your outcome.

Ahem...

Then don't do it. Vote honestly, don't min max your votes.

 

[Michael Morris]

It seems, given that coding is already underway, that it is probably too late to propose switching from AV/IRV to STV at this late date. If you want to back STV next year rather than multi-vote plurality system you did this year, I think it could be an intriguing proposition and one I could be talked into. But I think the boat has sailed on how votes will be counted this year.

Programmers typically want 2 to 3 times as much test time as initial code time. I started on this code Saturday - 4 days more or less. By the time the testing phase is completed the judges will be announcing nominees - so yes, it's accurate to say the boat has sailed.

 

[Macbeth]

I agree with Crothian. If you don't try to break the voting system, it won't break. Sure, somebody will try some kind of crazy vote to favor one product or another, but for the most part, I think this method will reflect actual voter opinion a bit better then the old way and make strategic voting harder to do (though not imposible).

 

[fusangite]

The voting system you are proposing is a modified variant of STV, a form of proportional representation (basically, you're proposing running it without fractional or random transfers). Proportional systems tend to reflect the diversity of public opinion rather than the general views of the majority. If you favour proportionality here, I would recommend that you advocate for a more mathematically sounds version of STV that incorporates the fractional transfer.

Because, I should explain, your current version basically over-counts the votes of supporters of popular candidates by transferring them in such a way that the supporters of a winning candidate are, in most cases, voting more than once. Your version of STV here is also unbalanced because it is quota-less. So, actually, your proposal does not achieve the proportional objectives you are touting, and explain quite eloquently in your post about the need to reflect excellence and diversity rather than simple popularity.