I think that you should close voting two weeks early. Heck, make it three.


RPG Superstar™ General Discussion

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Somebody has to say it; might as well be me. Here's why.

I just started voting today, and it seems like all I'm getting are middling items, neither awful nor awesome. I'm also seeing lots of repeats, and no easy decisions; for example, there was one that I saw a couple of times where I only knew that it didn't make sense because I took the time to look up a spell that it used -- otherwise, it would've seemed pretty cool.

If I understand the voting system correctly*, these are signs that the items have basically already been sorted into their proper categories. We could spend another week+ distinguishing between precise gradations of mediocrity, if necessary; but even that seems like kind of a waste to me, let alone going into the new year.

*:
The fewer votes up/down an item has, the higher the weighting for its random appearance. The more time passes, the more likely that an item will have ballots. The ones that are most likely to get "equally good/bad" are the ones in the middle, just by the nature of the beast; so in the end, the ones with the least ballots (and highest weightings to appear) will be mediocre ones that are hard to judge between. That's what I'm seeing, therefore we're done.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Clouds Without Water

Not sure I agree with the conclusion that lots of mediocre choices means the sorting is done. Mediocre items are more likely simply because they make up the vast bulk of submissions. Even at the start that's true.

I do think they should do something along the lines of cutting the bottom 5% every day.

It will become very tedious to expend thousands of voter person-hours determining the exact ranking of item 1734 vs item 1735 and so on.

Does anyone benefit from that?

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka CalebTGordan

I don't agree. Keep the voting going for as long as it is scheduled for. The longer the vote time the more likely the 32 needed items will be ranked in the top 32.

I do agree with cutting off the bottom percentage, but it was said elsewhere that doing so this year isn't possible because they didn't plan to do so this year and they want to keep following the rules they established. At least that is what I seem to understand, it might be more complicated than that.

Next year though, it would be nice to see things cut as we go. At some point the ranking of the items at the bottom of list is no longer relevant.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Deciding when to cut could be tricky though... let's say for example your item appears early on through the pairing cycles and gets no votes for the first 10 appearances (it's been unlucky and come up against slightly superior items in it's first pairings).

If a cull is made, your item could then be culled when if it had stayed, it's next 20 pairings may have resulted in say 15 votes - it might have averaged out against worse items and wouldn't be in the bottom anymore.

So when do you cut, 50 cycles? 100? 200? There is always a danger you cut something that didn't get votes early on due to pairing, understanding of the voting mechanism ,etc, so by keeping every entry in, you give every entry a fair and equal chance.

And the biggest problem is that as we all grow to understand the voting this year, next year there will be new voters in the same boat we are now in, learning how and why to vote.

Also, what if you are a slower voter who really considers before voting, or only gets a few hours a day? You might never get to see culled items in all likelihood and so would be denied your chance to have your voting say.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 aka Epic Meepo

I don't think they should trim the bottom X% each day.

Instead, I think the "Both Are Equal" button should be replaced with a "Neither Item Should Advance" button. Clicking on this button would automatically assess a down vote to both items in every possible pairing (not just the pairing on the screen); the items would thus be tied for last in the voter's rankings and would never be shown again.

(This hypothetical "Neither Item Should Advance" button would need an "Are You Sure?" dialogue box to prevent voters from accidentally eliminating items from their voting with an accidental button click.)

EDIT: Maybe "Item 1 Shouldn't Advance" and "Item 2 Shouldn't Advance" buttons, as well, so you don't have to wait for a bad item to be paired with another bad item to vote it to the bottom of the pile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merely paring down the entries wouldn't do it for me, since I have an ulterior motive. I have all of this pent-up criticism of bad writing to release, and you're telling me that I have to wait over three weeks?! Arrrgh!! But I want to blast them now. D:

Scarab Sages Contributor , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Steven T. Helt

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the time frame for coting is to allow discussion, judges to review, and contestants to develop next round's material. Moreover, I haven't read the details of the specific model being used, but it looks to me that the "power matching" going on is helping. We have to weed out all but 64 items. If items are constantly being compared to similarly ranked items, most pairings will suck and highly ranked items will be harder to find. The more voting cycles, the better chance that good items filter to the top as great items accumulate votes and losing (but still good items) get knocked down to compare against sucky items, so they stay near the top. Cutting voting prematurely means risking that crappy items that win regular comparisons to even crappier items seem to have an early advantage.

What bugs me is that if I'm right about the model, the fact that I haven't seen my item yet might mean it's doing very well, or it's screwed and has lost so many pairings it doesn't need to be ranked against the bad items I have to keep voting on.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka motteditor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fredrik wrote:
I have all of this pent-up criticism of bad writing to release, and you're telling me that I have to wait over three weeks?! Arrrgh!! But I want to blast them now. D:

Just remember, real people submitted all of these items. Yes, some of them are certainly bad, but at the same time, there's no need to crush people's spirits. Criticism is tough, and while it's important to be able to take it, no one wants to see someone reveling in it/tearing them down personally.

I definitely want to be able to talk about the items I really liked (or maybe even thought were interesting but with some flaws), but I'm just going to talk about the bad things with my real-life gaming friends instead of possibly exposing potentially very young designers or non-native English speakers to ridicule.

Liberty's Edge Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You know, I bet there are people out there that haven't even voted once yet that might want to vote on some items after the holidays are over.


Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

Just remember, real people submitted all of these items. Yes, some of them are certainly bad, but at the same time, there's no need to crush people's spirits. Criticism is tough, and while it's important to be able to take it, no one wants to see someone reveling in it/tearing them down personally.

I definitely want to be able to talk about the items I really liked (or maybe even thought were interesting but with some flaws), but I'm just going to talk about the bad things with my real-life gaming friends instead of possibly exposing potentially very young designers or non-native English speakers to ridicule.

Okay. As it happens, I got in on the premature also-rans thread before it was locked. Was this too harsh a criticism of this item? Obviously, I think it was just right, since I'm the one that wrote it; but I'm open to criticism myself.

Dedicated Voter Season 6

Steven T. Helt wrote:
[...] We have to weed out all but 64 items. If items are constantly being compared to similarly ranked items, most pairings will suck and highly ranked items will be harder to find.[...]

Is this how it works? I'm interested as I'm keeping track of what items I see mine come up against.


Eric Morton wrote:


Instead, I think the "Both Are Equal" button should be replaced with a "Neither Item Should Advance" button.

Yes, please. I just tried voting and a good half of the pairings I got I was like "neither please!" I am reluctant to vote for either because both are unacceptable on their face, but taking a "neither is better" mulligan seems pointless and the more I do it the less I want to vote.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8

it is important to realize that you are NOT voting for which item you think should advance to the top 32, you are simply voting on which item, among the two you are looking at, is the better item (with out regards to any other item in the submission pool)... given that voting 'neither is better/worse' should be a rare occurrence.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka motteditor

Fredrik, I think that criticism was perfectly fine. However, I think there's a difference between something someone put out there for criticism (especially something the designer himself decided wasn't his best choice to submit to the contest) vs. something submitted anonymously that a designer may think is his/her best work.

I was just worried from your earlier comments that you just wanted to go off on a rant as soon as you could (which I'll admit I can sort of understand with some of these items). : )

Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9

Reckless wrote:
You know, I bet there are people out there that haven't even voted once yet that might want to vote on some items after the holidays are over.

Aye, a friend just asked me if voting was over. He works the weekend shift in a nursing home & does not get to a computer then. He will spennd the next couple days at his in-laws.

As for when a cull should happen will be based on the number of significant votes. IIRC statitions work out a min number an ideal number to get an acceptable margin of error. I trust Vic, Gary, Ross et al to already figured that out :)


Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

Fredrik, I think that criticism was perfectly fine. However, I think there's a difference between something someone put out there for criticism (especially something the designer himself decided wasn't his best choice to submit to the contest) vs. something submitted anonymously that a designer may think is his/her best work.

I was just worried from your earlier comments that you just wanted to go off on a rant as soon as you could (which I'll admit I can sort of understand with some of these items). : )

Fair enough. I'll try to be really, really nice about explaining how it isn't actually spelled "wonderous", and how it doesn't make any sense to write a power than can be used if something happens during an immediate spell, and so on. ;)

Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I think people should refrain from offering critiques of individual items (once voting is over) unless the creator asks for such.


Since we're not allowed to discuss specific items while voting is going on, that's the same as saying that we shouldn't critique them at all. These items that were voluntarily offered up for judgment, by some people that are apparently delicate little flowers.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is correct, unless the creator asks for a critique once voting is over, keep your thoughts about any given item to yourself.

I would be surprised if a 'critique my item thread' does not pop up this year after the top 32 are announced, just like it has in all previous years... giving people who want feedback the chance to get it from fellow posters (and occasionally from judges as well).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 aka Epic Meepo

2 people marked this as a favorite.
cwslyclgh wrote:
it is important to realize that you are NOT voting for which item you think should advance to the top 32, you are simply voting on which item, among the two you are looking at, is the better item...

I understand the basics of Condorcet voting, and I still want a button that lets me say: "This item is tied for last." When I click that button, it should give the tied-for-last item one "worse-than" vote against each other item in the running. The voting booth can then stop showing me the tied-for-last item forever because I've voted on every pairing in which the tied-for-last item appears in a single click of a button.

(And yes, if two tied-for-last items get matched up, both would get a "worse-than" vote and neither would get a "better-than" vote. Designing a voting algorithm that can handle that situation shouldn't be that difficult compared to the code that's already in place for this year's vote.)

Scarab Sages Contributor , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Steven T. Helt

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What Meepo said. I'm grateful for the inside look at what judges have been going tbrough, and happy to review items and cast votes. But a "reject" button to prevent repeats seems smart. We aren't ranking the items from 1-900. We're looking for 64 keepers. I'll vote good entry againat good entry the entire voting period. If have to compare 200 words of backstory for "this item let's you cast a specific first level spell once per day to an item that offers an at will quickened mass 6th level spell for under 20k, I might have to extended suffocate myself.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 aka Standback

Honestly, though? Separating the wheat from the chaff is what crowdsourcing does best. Separating the Top 50 from the Second-To-Top 50? The crowd isn't necessarily too great at that.

There might be a better method than what's been chosen. Heck, there probably is. But this method will definitely get the job done, and, it's already in place!

Criticism and suggestions for next year are great. But please let's keep in mind that the organizers have built up a system here which (A) revolutionizes the contest, (B) gives us enthusiasts a deeper level of involvement and a massive peek behind the curtain, (C) saves the judges the worst and most exhausting part of their job, and (D) actually works.

There is room for improvement. Next year will likely be even better. But, yeah, we have always known that selecting the Top 32 basically means going through an immense pile of sub-par entries. The judges do not need us to select the best 50 out of the top 300; they're already awesome at that. What helps them most is knowing which the top 300 are. And that's precisely what this system will manage to do very, very well.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

Not everyone has voted or spent a significant amount of time voting. I just ran into someone today who didn't realize it had started. I know some people think we've got 'enough' voting, but give everyone a chance to get their votes in. If it's getting repetitive or boring, let some others grind at it for a bit. A big part of the point is for more voices to be heard.

Not to mention, most of the Paizo crew are out for the holidays. They won't even be around to finalize the round.

Founder, Legendary Games & Publisher, Necromancer Games, RPG Superstar Judge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
cwslyclgh wrote:
Honestly I think people should refrain from offering critiques of individual items (once voting is over) unless the creator asks for such.

I personally agree with this. I felt this was the one downside of public voting in round 1. Normally, we pare out the rejects, then the good but not great items, then the almost made it items, then we sort through the ones in the Keep folder for your final 32. So you never see the bad ones or even the good but not quite good enough ones unless that author asks.

My fear is people would keep notes and name names on bad submissions they saw.

I really encourage people NOT to do that unless an author asks.

I hope what we see is a Critique My Item thread like we have every year and you all can join in with your thoughts. But please, consider not posting comments or examples unless you are asked to do so by the author.

I think not following this advice could have a number of negative consequences, not the least of which would be to reduce the professional and congenial tone of these Paizo forums (they are legendary for that) and to potentially scare off future submissions in future years, since submissions have always been and still are anonymous and get no feedback unless the author requests it. While it is true that you wouldnt be able to put a name with an item, the public flogging doesn't seem called for.

Of course, it is your call. Just consider this my suggestion for restraint.

Silver Crusade Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree with that.

Unasked for criticism is deadly to beginners. This is some people's first year.

So far people have been great at keeping their critiques general, so people can self identify issues. Lets not "name and shame".

I'd hate to create an atmosphere that discourages people from having a go. They might make every mistake on the list their first year, but they'll get better the next year :-)


I don't see a problem with collecting the various missteps and putting them out there as a general "what to avoid" post. If someone made those missteps, they'll know who they are.

Even people who ask for critique often have difficulty accepting tough criticism gracefully. Foisting it on them unasked is even more likely to upset people. Best to avoid that.

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
cwslyclgh wrote:
Honestly I think people should refrain from offering critiques of individual items (once voting is over) unless the creator asks for such.

I'd agree with this, too. Just like prior years, let Clark or Sean open up a "Critique My Item" thread (or even a subforum where each item can have its own feedback thread) and allow folks to post their items if they want feedback. Then, and only then, folks could comment on why they voted the way they did regarding those items. Aside from giving everyone the opportunity to reinforce the lessons they've learned about item design by sharing their opinions with those seeking feedback, such a thread would give Clark, Sean, and Wolfgang an opportunity to render their own suggestions and insights, as well. In the meantime, only those requesting feedback receive it. And those who don't want it, avoid being called out unnecessarily.

Remember, every year, we've had children and first-time submitters...i.e., a future generation of game designers...participate in RPG Superstar. Don't unnecessarily squealch their enthusiasm before they've even had a chance to learn some lessons on their own by going through the experience. Basically, if the voting public is going to take on the mantle of helping judge the first round alongside the actual judges, make sure you model the behavior of the judges from prior years when offering feedback to those who didn't make the cut. To me, that's the sign of a Superstar supporter. And that's your first (and perhaps most important) step towards becoming a Superstar competitor and designer. Talent only takes you so far in this competition and this industry. You also need to develop a relationship with the fans of the game, which includes those with a demonstrated interest in Pathfinder and RPG Superstar.

But that's just my two cents,
--Neil

Wayfinders Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A new, aspiring potential future superstar may have just worked up the courage to submit for the first time this year.

A potential future superstar may not have gotten that far, but is trolling these boards and thinking about next year.

Critiquing items unsolicited, when the author is not yet ready to hear the harsh truth does not educate, it just crushes.

As tempting as it is to review and critique (and vent), being specific without a request has great potential for harm, with no upside.

The ones who need to learn and are ready for it, will ask. The ones who aren't ready won't ask and the ones who probably need a good thrashing with a style guide won't even be paying attention to the forums.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7

I like to say, criticism is only good when its constructive. Sure, the item might be horribly bad, but simply bashing it won't do anyone any good. On the other hand, if you analyze what's wrong with the item, I'll be a great help for the creator and a good exercise for you. Its very easy to lash out on obviously bad items, but it takes some effort to really analyze them and post an entirely unbiased opinion.

Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9

Quote:
I don't see a problem with collecting the various missteps and putting them out there as a general "what to avoid" post. If someone made those missteps, they'll know who they are.

this has already been done. See SKR's auto reject advice. Or see Clark's critique my item thread from 2008. Or the one from 2009. Or 2010, 2011. There is one from 2012 too.

The people making general mistakes dinnae read those threads. Pointing these mistakes out in another thread they won't read isn't critique, its criticism. In my opinion one is professional, one is not. YMMV :)

That said I hope there is a critique MY item thread

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just FYI, I've been running some spot checks over the weekend. We are getting a LOT of votes, and a steady increase in the number of voters each day. And the ordering of the items has been changing over time—there are several items that rank highly today that weren't near the top of the list a couple days ago.

Champion Voter Season 6

No system is perfect but the current method seems to address a lot of the vote stuffing issues with the one minute time delay acting as a vote brake. Not deleting items keeps the voting pool large and diverse preventing vote concentration. Paizo will probably tweak the system next year from lessons learned.

IMO some of the "Gag & Other" items which are very well written and formatted seem to be having a little fun based on using one of the "26 Suggested Submission Guide Line No Nos" and "feel" like they were written by the same individual or individuals due to the writing style which could simply be parallel development from 1,500+ individual submissions operating under the same constraints.

If some groups have the time and inclination to vote stuff up or down their group items and or favorites or dislikes to some degree as a small voting bloc. In the end the Judges still make the final decisions for the Top 32. Curious to see how the public vote will impact the judge's decisions.

IMO the first few hundred votes are probably the harshest under this system until you get a feel for the voting system and competition submission reading some of the How I Vote posts.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 aka FaxCelestis

Fredrik wrote:
Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

Just remember, real people submitted all of these items. Yes, some of them are certainly bad, but at the same time, there's no need to crush people's spirits. Criticism is tough, and while it's important to be able to take it, no one wants to see someone reveling in it/tearing them down personally.

I definitely want to be able to talk about the items I really liked (or maybe even thought were interesting but with some flaws), but I'm just going to talk about the bad things with my real-life gaming friends instead of possibly exposing potentially very young designers or non-native English speakers to ridicule.

Okay. As it happens, I got in on the premature also-rans thread before it was locked. Was this too harsh a criticism of this item? Obviously, I think it was just right, since I'm the one that wrote it; but I'm open to criticism myself.

Hell no. That was exactly what needed to be said about the item, and having that many questions for an item already pushing the 300 word limit, you can see why I went with something else.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8

I've been grinding away with voting every free moment during the holidays, often via iPhone.

I'm ready to stick with it until the bitter end, but what is really hurting my motivation is the high number of items I've already seen before. Would it be possible to put some kind of limit on the amount of times individual items are shown to a user?

Assistant Software Developer , Star Voter Season 7

Jacob Trier wrote:
Would it be possible to put some kind of limit on the amount of times individual items are shown to a user?

It turns out this kind of limitation is excessively expensive, in a computational sense.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8

Ross Byers wrote:
Jacob Trier wrote:
Would it be possible to put some kind of limit on the amount of times individual items are shown to a user?
It turns out this kind of limitation is excessively expensive, in a computational sense.

Thanks for the swift reply, Ross - guess all there is to do is slug it out and take comfort in the occasional fresh item.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka Arkos

Ross Byers wrote:
Jacob Trier wrote:
Would it be possible to put some kind of limit on the amount of times individual items are shown to a user?
It turns out this kind of limitation is excessively expensive, in a computational sense.

That is unfortunate. On the other hand, are you guys getting enough crowdsourced data that we shouldn't feel too bad if our motivation starts to wane? Are there enough new voters each day that will keep this thing moving forward? Even without knowing n, n-choose-2 isn't a lot of pairings, but it's definitely more than a single person should be checking!

Would it break any sort of contest secrecy to get a statistical update? I'd love to know if every pairing has been voted on at least once, or how many times the most seen pairing has been voted on, or any kind of weird data like that. Then again, this could just be the math teacher in me talking.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 aka FaxCelestis

Arkos wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Jacob Trier wrote:
Would it be possible to put some kind of limit on the amount of times individual items are shown to a user?
It turns out this kind of limitation is excessively expensive, in a computational sense.

That is unfortunate. On the other hand, are you guys getting enough crowdsourced data that we shouldn't feel too bad if our motivation starts to wane? Are there enough new voters each day that will keep this thing moving forward? Even without knowing n, n-choose-2 isn't a lot of pairings, but it's definitely more than a single person should be checking!

Would it break any sort of contest secrecy to get a statistical update? I'd love to know if every pairing has been voted on at least once, or how many times the most seen pairing has been voted on, or any kind of weird like that. Then again, this could just be the math teacher in me talking.

As amateur game designers, I am fairly certain we are all statistic enthusiasts. I would love to see even a simple statistical analysis ("X votes have been cast, Y pairs have yet to be displayed, Z votes is the average voting session length").

Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Clouds Without Water

Oh my gosh! I just saw a new item!

First time in quite a while.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Arkos wrote:
That is unfortunate. On the other hand, are you guys getting enough crowdsourced data that we shouldn't feel too bad if our motivation starts to wane?

Yes.

Arkos wrote:
Would it break any sort of contest secrecy to get a statistical update? I'd love to know if every pairing has been voted on at least once, or how many times the most seen pairing has been voted on, or any kind of weird data like that. Then again, this could just be the math teacher in me talking.

We're discussing what to reveal, though because most of us are out this week it's slowing down the discussion. :)

Dark Archive

Clouds Without Water wrote:

Oh my gosh! I just saw a new item!

First time in quite a while.

Be careful, they can track what you have seen.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka Arkos

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
We're discussing what to reveal, though because most of us are out this week it's slowing down the discussion. :)

Ooooh, just enough of a tease to keep me voting and constantly refreshing the boards! My need for data and results has me completely hooked. I like it!

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to chime in: as painful as it may be to those of us who vote early and vote often, we are not the only people on them thar Intarwebs.

Imagine someone who hears about this contest a week from now, thinks it's really cool, and goes to vote, only to find out "oh, you've missed the early part of the voting. Now you only get to vote on the items that we think you should vote on."

Their opinion should matter too. Furthermore, for someone who enters the voting relatively late, if they don't see the full spectrum of items, their overall view of the contest will be significantly different.

I'm thinking that there should be no culling of items, regardless of where they end up on the scale early in the voting.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Steven T. Helt wrote:
But a "reject" button to prevent repeats seems smart. We aren't ranking the items from 1-900. We're looking for 64 keepers.

Two problems with that statement. First, we're *not* looking for 64 keepers. That "64" thing was briefly discussed brainstorming sessions for voting procedures, but it's not something we elected to go with; unfortunately, not everyone on staff had learneded that we weren't going with it, and it was incorrectly mentioned in public early on. In fact, the judges will look at however many items it takes to get a great Top 32, whether than number is 32, 64, or higher.

Second, a "reject" button would actually be a harmful addition from a data-gathering point-of-view. This system works best when entries are paired up against the widest possible variety of other entries, and if you could opt out of seeing a particular entry, that would result in fewer pairings being registered.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 aka Epic Meepo

Vic Wertz wrote:
Second, a "reject" button would actually be a harmful addition from a data-gathering point-of-view. This system works best when entries are paired up against the widest possible variety of other entries, and if you could opt out of seeing a particular entry, that would result in fewer pairings being registered.

That's why I'd like to see a "Tied for Last Button" (with a large but finite number of allowed uses per voter). It would automatically provide data for every possible pairing including the "tied for last" item, while simultaneously guaranteeing I never have to see it again.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7

Alternatively, I could see a system where you are presented with 4 or more items, and you are granted a limited number of points to distribute between them.

For example you are granted 20 points for each of these votes, which you can freely distribute.

You get four items

1 of them Great
1 of them Good
and 2 of them Bad

You give the one great item 10 points.
You give the one good item 6 points.
You give the first bad item 3 points, and the other 1 point.

Or, alternatively something like this.
You are presented with, for example, 6 items
You get this set of points
1
2
5
8
12
16

These points you award to the items presented. There could be a problem in a case of a culling, and you are presented with more quality items, but the only real problem would appear if you do a massive culling, resulting in a bunch of good items, and fewer bad ones.

This is just off the top of my head, but I think that these systems could work in theory. It would take more thought than just X > Y, and I think it would make voting more interesting.

Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Clouds Without Water

Are the voting records being kept on a per-voter basis, though?

In other words, does the system care if Voter A selected Item 302 over item 784, or does it just care that *someone* selected Item 302 over item 784?

My impression was that the goal is to get votes for as many pairings as possible, in which case it makes more sense to show pairings to whoever, rather than show the same pairing to multiple people.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 aka Standback

Clouds Without Water wrote:
Are the voting records being kept on a per-voter basis, though?

I was wondering about this too.

My first impression was that there is a "ballot" per voter, but later descriptions left me less certain.

Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7

Eric Morton wrote:
...guaranteeing I never have to see it again.

And water down the archievement of "Marathon Voter".

Voting must hurt sometimes :-)

Dedicated Voter Season 6

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Steven T. Helt wrote:
But a "reject" button to prevent repeats seems smart. We aren't ranking the items from 1-900. We're looking for 64 keepers.

Two problems with that statement. First, we're *not* looking for 64 keepers. That "64" thing was briefly discussed brainstorming sessions for voting procedures, but it's not something we elected to go with; unfortunately, not everyone on staff had learneded that we weren't going with it, and it was incorrectly mentioned in public early on. In fact, the judges will look at however many items it takes to get a great Top 32, whether than number is 32, 64, or higher.

Second, a "reject" button would actually be a harmful addition from a data-gathering point-of-view. This system works best when entries are paired up against the widest possible variety of other entries, and if you could opt out of seeing a particular entry, that would result in fewer pairings being registered.

Third, there are probably a few jerks out there deliberately down-voting good items in order to give their own item a better chance. We don't want to give them access to an instant-kill button.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / General Discussion / I think that you should close voting two weeks early. Heck, make it three. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.