Change to the TWG Voting System?

[vermilionvermin]

I was about altering the way we choose which TWG gets chosen.  Traditionally, we've gone with a poll system.  I haven't consulted on whether Mashi would be okay with this or not, but I think there'd be a better way to make sure more people got what they wanted.

I think the current voting system is flawed.  Because people can see how others voted, they're more likely to vote for ones which others have voted for in order to make their vote more likely to "count".  People only voting for one game means that a game which is adored by some but hated by most is too likely to get picked.

I think a ranking of the games is a better idea in general because it would result in people thinking beyond which game they'd most like to play.  I think it could also help activity in games because if people have ranked the game, they've probably thought about strategy in it to some degree.  That would also lead to more effective feedback on the game, and hosts being able to determine how popular their game is (and whether or not to continue nominating it).

There are two ways to go about ranking the games. 

One would be to send your rankings to the TWC who opened the Host Signup topic.  The pros of this system are people not getting their feelings hurt when their games don't get picked and people not altering their rankings based on the rankings of others.  The cons are hosts getting less feedback and the TWC getting access to information that others don't.

The other is posting the rankings in the thread.  This allows the host to get feedback on their game, but it means people are more likely to alter their rankings based on what others have ranked the games.

Thoughts?

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Because people can see how others voted, they're more likely to vote for ones which others have voted for in order to make their vote more likely to "count".

Uh... I don't really think people would willingly vote for a game they don't want...
Unless they're zombies.

Otherwise, the poll is pretty good... but would it also be a good idea, in addition, if people posted a small paragraph explaining WHY they voted for what they did??

[Bird]

Think of a situation where there are 9 people and 3 choices of games to play (A, B, and C). If people voted regularly, the poll may end up with 5 votes for A and 4 votes for B. A would win in this situation. But suppose that all the people who voted A really liked B also, and all the people who voted B absolutely hated A. If this were the case, it seems like the game that would please the most people would be game B, even though it didn't win the vote.

The problem with everybody ranking the games rather than just voting in the poll is that nobody likes doing it. It takes a lot more effort to post/pm rankings, even though it's a more accurate representation of what people would like to play. On another forum where this happened, the number of people responding dwindled, so you ended up losing accuracy of what people wanted to play anyway.

So I'm actually impartial.

[Yugi]

I don't really care to be honest.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

The problem with everybody ranking the games rather than just voting in the poll is that nobody likes doing it. It takes a lot more effort to post/pm rankings, even though it's a more accurate representation of what people would like to play. On another forum where this happened, the number of people responding dwindled, so you ended up losing accuracy of what people wanted to play anyway.

So I'm actually impartial.

In most situations (coughTwocough), I've only had like one or two games I've REALLY liked, and the others I wasn't really interested in.

Also, with the "A, B, C" example, I doubt it would be so clear-cut in most situations.

[Bird]

Another point in favor of the ranking system is that, with so many people trying to host, they usually just vote for their own games. So the decision is actually made by just a few players who aren't trying to host. If we did lists then hosts would get to pick the game they would like to play if theirs didn't win.

[FSM-Reapr]

I suggest we take the bold-vote system back. Then those people who'll vote for themselves will be ignored.

Edit: Wait, isn't there an option that makes the poll like no one else can see the results but you?

[vermilionvermin]

I think that maybe an honor code system that doesn't allow people to vote for their own games would be the best way to do it in the future.  And I think obscuring vote totals is probably a good idea as well.  What that means, though, is that we can't end the poll in a landslide vote because we won't know when one person is leading by a lot.  Perhaps we should shorten the standard of two days to one day?  Most of the votes seem to come in the first 24 or so hours after I open the voting anyways.

[FSM-Reapr]

*FSM approves*

[vermilionvermin]

Bumping this topic in light of the current hosting poll.  Hosts really shouldn't be able to lobby for their games in the thread, and I think it's probably best that players not change their votes based on what other people say.  At the very least, the voting should be obscured.  I think the best-case scenario is sending them to a TWC member named at the start of the host sign-ups (and then having the TWC member post the PM's after two days), though I would be OK with a system where people posted rankings in the thread.

I think that Bird's proposed changes to host sign-ups make each of these alternatives easy to implement.

[Bird]

I'm actually in favor of keeping the voting system. I think it's important for voting to be easy, and for players to be able to talk about the games. What if somebody notices that an alliance will make that game boring? Should they keep that information to themselves, or share it in hopes of getting a more fun game selected? It's pretty fucked up how some people vote for the friend's games or how some potential hosts ask their friends to vote for them, but if that's the price we pay for an easy voting system, I'm okay with paying it.

[vermilionvermin]

Then I think we should have that happen in the thread through editable rankings.  The problem with the current system is that it's too easy to vote.

[Bird]

I'd be okay with that. I just don't want to do anything over PM, since everybody hates that.

[Waddle Bro]

Here's the suggestion what I support:

We keep the poll system, however:
The people who didn't get their game chosen to be played, cannot present games in the next Host Sign-Up thread. However the person who came in second in the host poll can present his/her game in the next Host Sign-Up thread.

[Toby]

Waddle, some things you did during this voting are partially the reason why we're trying to change it, it's not all your fault and not only you, I just don't think you've realised that you caused some of the problems.