I can sum up this nicely and succinctly without any head hurting...
Ready?
The voting will only be as successful as we make it!
Ta-da!
I can sum up this nicely and succinctly without any head hurting...
Ready?
The voting will only be as successful as we make it!
Ta-da!
That sounds suspiciously like witchery and hokum to me! WITCHERY I SAY!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where's AM BARBARIAN when you need him :) He could smash this into making sense.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I take solace in the fact that if I don't make the top 32 this time, I can always blame Concordet... whoever or whatever that is... Mr Concordet, I hate you if you ruin this contest for me!!! Arrrg!
;-)
Star Voter Season 6
|
As far as discussion of the items, a common sense approach would likely be best. That is, discuss items without being a overly negative or a door-to-door salesmen.
I suspect that the bizarre-yet-memorable novelty items may win out on the discussion threads however. After all, a well-balanced and sensible item may not give rise to discussion like an enlarged barnacle that attaches to one's back, hands the user enchanted arrows, and allows the wearer to occasionally lay an egg.
Hey, how did you see my entry?
This page gives a reasonably plain-english description of how we're planning on ranking the entries.
Hmmm. Another voting system. Why are voting methods being used instead of data gathering methods? I know...we are voting. But, it's not like there are only two or three candidates.
I'm not being clear. A voting method assumes relatively few options (only approx 2 to 10 participants), and weights choices through a linear logic of weight. Example A>B; B>C; therefore A>C. This is a hard logical process to validify on the merit of 'wondrous items.' One could be better due to grammar, content, play-ability, creativity...which could be weighted much differently on a case-by-case difference.
While a data gathering method would employ sampling and cross sampling to create meaningful subsets which could be again sampled and cross sampled...until you get you best 'weighted' or top picks.
Now a true data gathering method would need to employ full sets of permutations; but, statistical methods would allow the creation of significant amounts of permutations (say 30-40%...perhaps even much lower) to create the subsets needed to further progress--and of course each subset would have a smaller number of permutations. But, again, I worry about the sheer amount of participation needed.
Again, not belittling the process or trying to create a problem...just genuinely interested in the process.
The top 32 of the "voting/ranking" are just those that the majority of the public prefer and that the Judges see first for entry into the true top 32.
If the top 32 ranks are as amazing to the judges (who will be ranking as well so may have lower public ranked figures they want to lobby for) then the top 32 as ranked by us go through.
If the judges disagree with majority opinion then they go down the list until they have 32.
That is how I have understood it, but I may be wrong.
Yep. That's right! It will work just fine.
...
I'm not being clear. A voting method assumes relatively few options (only approx 2 to 10 participants), and weights choices through a linear logic of weight. Example A>B; B>C; therefore A>C. This is a hard logical process to validify on the merit of 'wondrous items.' One could be better due to grammar, content, play-ability, creativity...which could be weighted much differently on a case-by-case difference.While a data gathering method would employ sampling and cross sampling to create meaningful subsets which could be again sampled and cross sampled...until you get you best 'weighted' or top picks.
...
Purely in the interest of debate:
I'm not so sure, that A>B>C order should come about naturally. Just like voting in an election, everyone has different criteria. Perhaps voter A picks Obamney because of his great haircut and the twinkle in his eye. Perhaps voter B picks Romama because he has a bajillion dollars and therefore must understand the economy. All the voters have their own ordered set of important criteria, but in the end, there is clearly a winner and a loser (unless one of them has a cousin in Florida).
Since we are deciding the best of two, that should do a good job of ordering things about right, provided enough votes are cast. The "weight" in this case is "how many people find X to be the most important criterion?" The more people think formatting is more important, the more weight formatting will carry, and so on.
(There will just be no way of telling exactly how much weight each factor carried.)
That is because in a Concordet ballot you list more than one preference by rank. This creates paradoxes that are resolved with the logical formulas. Like I said earlier, the voting method doesn't match what we do. There is an alternate Concordet method that collects single ballots...but then there are several more rounds of voting that eventually eliminates the losers...eventually leaving the winner. Which is, I guess, closer to what they are proposing.
All weighting will be done through number of yeses over number of ballots. This will grade the applicant compared to others. If there is a need to subset later, they will start to group like-weighted entries to create a ranking.
What we are doing will work fine.
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
As far as discussion of the items, a common sense approach would likely be best. That is, discuss items without being a overly negative or a door-to-door salesmen.
I suspect that the bizarre-yet-memorable novelty items may win out on the discussion threads however. After all, a well-balanced and sensible item may not give rise to discussion like an enlarged barnacle that attaches to one's back, hands the user enchanted arrows, and allows the wearer to occasionally lay an egg.
From Mr "Migrus Locker", (my favourite RPG Superstar wondrous item of all time! by the way), I think you are correct. You have not lost your touch either - that barnacle thing sounds pretty cool.
I think a top 5 or 10 thread would be pretty cool. However, if detailed commentary is entered into, I can see a lot of entrants busting their anonymity - particularly if they perceive their item has no chance and so they "out" themselves. This is just going to re-adjust the workload from the judges to Gary and the tech guys trying to keep everything in order. As such, I think discussion would be best kept to a minimum regarding the specifics of an item. I certainly would not want to see a bottom 5 or reject thread or anything that would ridicule the efforts of contestants.
Like a few here, I think I'm going to play the judging game where I copy/paste entries into my own "keep" and "reject" files, then have fun picking a final 32 and posting it when appropriate. I'm really looking forward to that process so thanks paizo for the opportunity at being allowed to peek behind the curtain.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a top 5 or 10 thread would be pretty cool. However, if detailed commentary is entered into, I can see a lot of entrants busting their anonymity - particularly if they perceive their item has no chance and so they "out" themselves. This is just going to re-adjust the workload from the judges to Gary and the tech guys trying to keep everything in order. As such, I think discussion would be best kept to a minimum regarding the specifics of an item. I certainly would not want to see a bottom 5 or reject thread or anything that would ridicule the efforts of contestants.
I agree. Top 5, 10 or 32 threads would be fun, but any detailed commentary on the items would be bad. Especially any negative comments. Each year the judges say something along the lines of "come on, you've got nothing to lose, it's totally anonymous and no-one will even see your entry unless you post it in the evaluate my item threads". Well, the "no-one will even see it" part has changed, but let's not change the "nothing to lose" part.