Quest: The Rules, the debate

#1

Well, had I decided the top 5, the list would surely have looked vastly different. I did not and 4.5 was the criteria for gaining entry. Everyone knew that.

So will this produce the most deserving list? I think the young players will agree and the old players will disagree. It is a very young list.

Has this followed the agreed upon procedures? I think we all agree to that. If there are discrepancies, like ignoring HoH and Golden votes that is that. Let us think about it till the next quest.

For now these are the finalists. Let us accept that.

The Rules

#2

I think in the future these need ot be secret ballot type of votes with everyone voting via the vote option for a poll or in another fashion so anyone isn't swayed by another members vote. Just my 2 cents.

The Rules

#3

I think in the future these need ot be secret ballot type of votes with everyone voting via the vote option for a poll or in another fashion so anyone isn't swayed by another members vote. Just my 2 cents.

I'd second that opinion.

The Rules

#4

I for one am never swayed!!

(well, almost never..for example a beautiful woman, could potentially sway me to..ummm..well, do anything.)

But seriously, I think we need one certain dungeon back among the finalists..two or three actually, now that I think about it. I say we start over again.

here's another thought...we should have three winners..1st 2nd 3rd..too many people have great entries!

Oh and furthermore, we dont need "finalists" in my opinion...maybe my favorite dungeon got a 4.4...maybe that is also teh favorite dungeon of 10 other people! We should vote on ALL Quest submissions, me'thinks.

*Braces himself for Ria's monkeys and flamethrower and frozen trout*

The Rules

#5

well, for this to be a suitable contest, we all cannot be winners. I think the winner and runner up is enough.

As for criteria, 4.5 minimum score seems fine to me, I did several dungeon submissions and only one met the requirements, seems fair. It is a contest and should have strong guidelines.

I do support the secret ballot also, since it could very easily sway voting, and if the vote is visible before the end date, it could create a situation of politicking for votes and i do despize politics in its many and vile forms.

The Rules

#6

not all winners...just three. And the quest is the contest itself. So I'm not sure a further "finalists" list is needed.
It makes no difference if say, a dungeon is included that scored a combined 2.5. You simply ignore it and move on. IMHO, there is something wron with being told which subs I'm allowed to vote on for victory.

secret ballot? sure works for me.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#7

The rules are no surprise and I heartily echo AG's comment on keeping this one the way it is. I can't see it being entirely fair to change the rules in the middle just because something doesn't work out the way we think it should. So no more belly aching on how this one turned out. :bat:

http://www.strolen.com/guild/index.php/topic,2965.msg41449.html#msg41449

Had to have a combined vote of 4.5 or better.
Had to meet the quest requirements

And then a small addition added

In order to win, you must vote.
You may not vote on your own submission.

Bang. There it is. I want to make sure Ria knows that we aren't picking on her because she is heading it. I love Ria for putting it together and taking the reigns on this. She did everything in the open and she would have taken any suggestion we threw at her. We didn't make any other rule suggestions (that I could find) so she ran with it exactly as announced. A+ on Ria's part!!!

That said, maybe we need to make some changes because this one didn't turn out how maybe we think it should. ( :) hypocrite ;) )

Great. Improvement is always good and you can't always guess what is going to happen when you start something. I am happy that people care enough about it to make the suggestions so lets fix it.

The Poll options: You can have a poll and hide the results till the poll is over. However, this only allows one choice. If you think we have enough voters to make the top two be valid winners than that is fine. Could have two polls as well I suppose. One for first and one for second and do it that way. :?: Might have to test that idea.

PM secret ballot is too labor intensive I think. Rather be like it is then go that route.

Having all the submissions available to vote on. I am tossing back and forth on this one. I think chances are pretty safe that only those with a high vote are going to make it into our vote so it might a bit too much to have them all options. If you wanted to do the top 20% or lower the threshold to a 4.0, that might make more sense than allowing them all. It just isn't necessary to list them all I don't think.

And I think two winners is just fine.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#8

I agree with most of the things you say here, Strolen.

But I do not agree on the limit. Why should we hinder people from voting on low score subs? If I love a sub that got 3.4, that is MY choice, is it not?

And: One vote to rule them all and in darkness bind them. Not two.

Secret ballot: Thumbs up. Eliminates the tactical voting.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#9

Well, I dunno', I was just surprised at the finalists... I think the current system works fine, really.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#10

I agree we shouldn't change the rules in the middle of voting, but perhaps some of these ideas could be considered for the next quest.

I think some of these solutions are the cures to the problems they create. If all quest subsmissions are put into the voting and everyone has one vote, no one's going to waste their precious vote on something with a low score. If the score is so low, it's because people voted it down, and they certainly aren't going to waste their contest vote on them. And if we want it a secret ballot, we don't have to worry about just having one vote because one is enough. I think everyone would win in this system. Except those hypothetical really bad subs, of course. :wink:

As for a winner and a runner up, I don't see any problem with that.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#11

I hear and will consider rules changes. This is the way it was done last time, and people said it worked, so...

I don't mind having a poll up, and I think I could fix it so that people had two votes. Really, the reason I didn't do it this time is because that way there's no way to enforce the "don't vote for your own" thing. I have no problem with setting it up as an honor system, and just trusting people to not vote for their own, or eliminating that rule all together.

I point blank refuse to conduct voting through PMs. This is more to protect me than anything else. I really don't think it would be an issue, but I'd just rather avoid the entire possibility that I've manipulated the votes, particularly when my own sub is a contender. I wouldn't do it, but I'd rather avoid the hassle.

So of the choices presented, what do people really want to happen next time?

Oh, in case anyone's wondering, the way the winner is determined is a point system. Two points for a first choice vote, one for a second. When the voting closes, I'll add up the points.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#12

Voting by poll: :up:, though I can see how the voting on your own sub thing would be difficult to enforce.

Voting by PM: :down:, completely unnecessary given the infrastructure the forums provide.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#13

Well, the best system would be double forum voting with an automatic email sent to an admin when we do. That email would contain the voter's choices and should an author vote for his own, he would gain -1 point instead.

Otherwise I think forum based poll voting sounds great.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#14

No matter what we are doing, we will stick to the existing rules for the contest. I think the process, as we have it, is quite fair. We knew the process from last time and it worked. Most of the solutions will open up more problems than they will resolve.

Actually, I wound not mind secret voting, as it keep mob/herd voting and voting to appease ones friends to a minimum. Those are some of the reasons we change back from publically listing the score.

A PM to The Admin in charge would not be bad.... though then people will assume that the admin will be a King Maker and choose what they wanted. So perhaps a blank account that a couple of admins know the password too? This is do-able, but complicated.

Polling is just the same as posting your votes, except you get a little annonymity. However, their is no mechanism to prevent people from voting for their own subs. That is something we might want to avoid in a contest. Personally I have no belief in an honor system. Too many people will do what they can to win.

As for the run off process. Yes, the public vote should be 4.5 or better, with a miminum of the five highest rated. So if the fifth best rated is 4.3, that would go. HoH are too easy to obtain and are frequently just given because it is "new", but seven votes high enough to keep your rating above 4.5 is hard to do, thus worth it as a selection process.

Note: Now this does penalized the "artistic" or "different". People tend not to like them. If you submit a piece like that rather than one that is more one conventional, one needs to live with that result. I do this all the time and my scores reflect it. People often do not perceive what you see as the true value of what you post . Thus we suffer for our art or our choices of odd game systems/ setting. If you are in it for the scores, then you need to do more "conventional" posts. If you are in it for the Art, then ignore the scores AND contests.

Now about the running off:
If we allow people to vote on any sub, rather than the ones that were publically scored high, then this become nothing more than a contest of "who has the most friends". Thus the votes make a good weeding system, as friends tend to vote higher for friends (though less inclined to do that now that we have secret voting). It is not perfect, but name any represenational process that is.

One winner is really all we need. If you want to give out more or have "almost good enough" ratings/ winners, then feel free. But do we need it? I personally think not.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#15

I agree with some of what has been said. And far be it for me to lay claim that my opinion is better as it isn't. It's just different. My wife complains often that I view things too far outside the box than most people. Job related I am sure.

Now the secret ballot idea I think is a good idea however how to do that I am not sure. I don't code I just write.

Having more than five finalists I think could be a problem as well as it could confuse voters or cause to many to be voted on for a final decision. My idea when looking at this was odd to be sure.

Why take the sub votes into account? Looking at all the quest subs, not everyone who has voted has read all of the quest subs. I myself have not read/ voted on all so I am laying blame here as well. What good it a voters choice if they have only read three of the subs, they will choose and vote for those three that they have read for example and not even take into account of the other subs other members have put up. Its like taking the presidential polls and only counting 45 states and leaving the other 5 out simply because the voters don't care about the other 5 states. I don't really think you can give a 100% voters choice if the voters haven't read every quest submission and taken into account the entire playing field.

While this probably won't be taken seriously or considered I felt it should be noted as a viable issue.

Another idea. My sugesstion was either to list all quest subs down and have a master vote of what people like not including the sub votes but only as long as the people voting have read and commented on the quest subs. Say twenty subs were done. List those twenty in order of 1 - 20, 1 being the highest rated and 20 being the lowest. Then from everyone who votes take out the top five and have a vote on the winner and runner up. That way at least those voting will take some time to say, ok this was was good but I liked this one better. Another far outside the box thought.

My 2 cents. And I wasn't bringing any of this up to say the current way is wrong and needs to be done over as it wouldn't be fair to the current voters/ winners.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#16

While this probably won't be taken seriously or considered I felt it should be noted as a viable issue.

On the contrary. I think it was a very sensible argument.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#17

And now that our next quest is nearing, I believe it is time to revive old threads.

I personally don't mind limiting the choices down to a top 5-10. I know that I probably haven't read all of the posts, and the smaller group (maybe two for every five, with a minimum of five?) gives me the chance to read through the posts that are getting voted on, instead of just pulling one that I remember reading out of a hat. There is a point to limiting the number of posts getting voted on, but limiting them too much causes useless strife.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#18

That is why I like the hurdle of the initial votes, with a minimum of 5 or so in the final pool.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#19

I just think that everyone should be required to read and vote on all of the subs before voting. Other than reading two or three and only voting on those. It doesn't even the playing field if the other 20 subs are not read or voted so their 4.5 or better isn't even considered because the possibility of them getting a higher vote is gone for not everyone reading everything.

I feel that all votes and HOH should be taken into consideration and added and then the top numbers voted on. Before a person can vote they should prove that they have read the other subs or at least the ones that made it to the finalists. I just feel like Im beating a dead horse so off to work again.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#20

Dead horses are there for the beating, Mourngrymn. It isn't as if they could protest or anything. ;)

As for the matter at hand: You all know my stance on this issue.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#21

I just think that everyone should be required to read and vote on all of the subs before voting. Other than reading two or three and only voting on those. It doesn't even the playing field if the other 20 subs are not read or voted so their 4.5 or better isn't even considered because the possibility of them getting a higher vote is gone for not everyone reading everything.

Everyone who is voting is pretty much reading and voting on all of them before hand. You can't force people to do it, but the active members of the Citadel pretty much read everything. Besides certain people did read the posts, but chose not to vote for what ever reason.

I feel that all votes and HOH should be taken into consideration and added and then the top numbers voted on. Before a person can vote they should prove that they have read the other subs or at least the ones that made it to the finalists. I just feel like Im beating a dead horse so off to work again.

HoH are just a function of bordom. They are not quite fufilling their conceptual role. HoH just means someone thought it was "neat" and there was nothing else for them to vote on, on a given day.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#22

HoH are just a function of bordom. They are not quite fufilling their conceptual role. HoH just means someone thought it was "neat" and there was nothing else for them to vote on, on a given day.

A function of boredom?

This does not hold any truth for me. I use Hall of Honours sparingly, for the deserving. I don't know what the inteded purpose was, but the use I have found for it is decent. I put an emphasis on me here. I cannot presume to speak for others in this case.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#23

I use Hall of Honours sparingly, for the deserving. I don't know what the inteded purpose was, but the use I have found for it is decent. I put an emphasis on me here. I cannot presume to speak for others in this case.

And it seems that you are in the vast minority...

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#24

Well, I'd probably be in that minority too.

We're like the Chechen rebels or something... FIGHT THE POWER

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#25

I agree so put me in the growing minority. I rarely use my HOH votes. Compared to the number of votes I have given and the number of HOH I have handed out, it is in single digit percentages. I will give maybe two out a month, if that. I honestly use it on something I think stands out and is a superior sub. If others dont use it that way, as you said we can't force someone to vote on everything or use a vote or a HOH a certain way, then so be it.

I was just stating a personal fact, which doesn't ride with the majority rules concensus I know.

/goes back to beating the horse in silence.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#26

HoH: Hall of Honour - The vision was not necessarily that they must be the best of the best. That is the purpose that Golden is suppose to fulfill. Each person is given the HoH to use them and if they do, that is what they are offered for. If not, then that is fine too and then they are all the more valuable when they are used. If everybody did use them everyday, then that would become an issue and we would have to reevaluate the system. Not because it is being abused, but that too many HoH would have the opposite effect as it was intended; they would become annoying instead of appreciated. But it is intended to highlight a few posts everyday and publish them to the front page to get visibility to all something that others may dig up in their travels. The main reason for them is that: to give older submissions another opportunity for review. We had many deep discussions on how to keep stuff from being buried forever. New stuff gets the light and as time goes by it slowly sinks into oblivion. We have a lot of submissions now so we needed a way to keep this from happening. One of the ideas was HoH and that was the original intention. Moon can correct me if I am off a bit, but that is my memory of its conception.

Those that are frugal in their HoH passing out have a much more refined HoH listing in their profile and perhaps it will be appreciated more. Others that use it more prolifically may have a huge list in their profile, but they are also providing a service to us by actually bringing stuff up on the front page. Both ways of using HoH have their distinct advantages and are serving the purpose of the system. I have no issues with either and I have viewed HoH and viewed a few to see tastes. It can be very rewarding doing it that way and I am still thinking of a better way to exploit that resource. People's HoH choices can be very valuable as far as data mining and finding a new way to show off some older submissions.

/dead horse is a bit squishy now.

Oh, wait, the quest and the topic of this thread.

/kicks dead horse aside in hopes of getting back on topic. (Maybe even split this to a HoH discussion thread...will start a new post just in case that happens)

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#27

Quest: I will go off the cuff without rereading much as my time is limited.

1. Quest was initially conceived to enhance those categories with low counts. We needed a way to promote those areas and create interest in them.

2. There is absolutely no reason that the initial reason for the quest needs to be the sole reason for them.

We are here because we love roleplaying and love creating. I nearly cheered when I read SE's post about making the quest as creative as the submissions themself. If somebody would requote that if it is not in this thread, please do. Does it have to be that way everytime? No, but we need to use that idea at some point. Just because we have a ton of items, if that is the mood and we have a good quest idea, run with it. We are looking for fun and if it is an easy challenge, make the quest reward smaller. If it is difficult, that up that quest reward as high as needed.

Should we count the HoH votes in the tally? I think so. There shouldn't be any golden votes on new stuff, we should wait a good bit of time before we vote golden though, they need to stand the test of time and attract us back to them, not just popped a golden as soon as you read it. But all those votes are given on purpose and because, to the voter, they go above the normal submission to them. And, yes, the HoH vote should still count even if the submission is rated a 4.1 or a 3.7. I don't know what they should count as and I don't have the time to do figures, but I think they should be looked at seriously.

Top 5: I still agree with this method. Just my opinion and it does seem simply an opinionated matter, but having all the submissions listed is just overkill. Deciding the top 5 can get dicey though. I understand that maybe the older submissions may get more votes but if it is a top submission, it should get the top votes no matter how many people vote for it. Is it a perfect system? Heck no. The older submissions may get more votes and so maybe get a more spectrum of voting scores while the newer ones get a smaller more beneficial pool of votes? I don't know, I haven't looked at them to see how the statistics weigh. Maybe XP could become a leveler somehow? Just throwing stuff out there. But listing all 20+ submissions is just plain unnecessary. If you want to extend a bit, that is fine, but I think 10 would still be too many and maybe 8 would be a more happy medium.

I think Ria figured out the multiple vote thing too which might make it better for an easier defined first and second. I am able to view all votes and the names associated with them--the system can be checked so worrying about people cheating is a non-issue.

Ria is the moderator of the Quest. (that is a period at the end of that sentence) She stepped up and took the reigns when this started and gave it the attention it needed and now, as long as she wants the position, it is hers without question. I will defer to all her decisions as the final arbitrator. She will take my opinion just as any others and make her decision.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#28

One thought on the counting of HoH's.

Counting HoH allows someone to vote for the same post multiple times. So if someone wanted to, and had HoH votes, they could skew the results.

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#29

All HoH's are labeled by voter for all to see. If that is an issue simply count only one per user. If XP comes into play though you would also have to subtract the 5xp per extra HoH too. (Pretty sure 5xp right? Have to check.)

You are right though! :)

Re: Quest: The Rules, the debate

#30

Okay, here's the current criteria for going on to the Finals, which will be used for the One of a Kind quest.

Right now, I'm thinking the top 5-8 submissions, with the criteria for being top being Golden Sub, Total vote score, number of votes, Hall of Honor, in that order. What I mean is that if anything gets a Golden, they're automatically in. Then the rest are determined by vote score, with more weight being given to high votes that have many votes, and Hall of Honor for tie breaker.

Additionally, the sub has to meet the quest criteria. In this case, there are some entries that don't quite fit the criteria. I'll pm you if this is the case, with the particular reason it doesn't fit.