Jon O'Neill wrote:I don't think rule three is a very good idea. I can't be arsed to read back at what people were saying but GotW voting may have changed over the course of the year. I would just get rid of the need for any GotW qualification at all because we've seen mistakes made in that.
Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think I'd limit the second and third places to only be included if the higher placed games also make it. Innis made a good post on a related note -
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 10#p128389 - and I think if a game gets lots of nominations then it would be wrong to go against the nominations.
In fact, I wouldn't limit it to first, second and third places. I don't see the need. It's unlikely that other games will make it, but if people want to nominate and vote for them, I think it would be undemocratic to overrule them. Obviously it's easier if you only have to look at
this page when deciding what to nominate, but allowing people to look beyong this doesn't force them to, so it's no inconvenience really. You might say that games that don't win GOTW or finish in the top three are unlikely to win or "shouldn't" win, but I think it's for the voters to decide rather than a predetermined rule.
Thanks for your input, Jono and Gevin. This seems altogether more sensible than the existing system. In implementing this, I'd essentially be saying "you may nominate any game from 2012, the
GotW archive would be a good place to start looking". In other words, Rules 2 and 3 would both be scrapped in favour of the simpler and more democratic "the games with the most nominations will make the final poll".
Jon O'Neill wrote:How many games will be in the shortlist?
Last year, I just chose a cut-off point in number of nominations received such that there was a decent number of candidates, but not too many. I was planning to do that again. So if the nominations came in thusly...
- 10 nominations - Game A
9 nominations - Game B, C
8 nominations - Game D, E, F
7 nominations - Game G, H, I, J, K
6 nominations - Game L, M, N, O, P, Q
5 nominations - Game R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y
4 nominations - Game Z etc.
...then the cut-off would probably be at ≥7 nominations (11 games), at ≥6 nominations (17 games) or at ≥5 nominations (25 games). This would depend on how many nominees would make sense for the final poll (this is open for discussion). Alternatively, I could fix the number of nominees for the final poll at say, 15 games, and then Games A-K from the example would automatically make it, leaving Games L-Q to fill the remaining 4 positions. The 4 candidates from these 6 would have to be decided on some criteria such as original GotW ranking or a random draw if necessary (again, ideas are welcome). Finally, the number of votes per person for the final poll (if indeed it is to be a forum poll again - see below) would be some sensible figure based on the number of nominees (also open to discussion). If I proceed with a ranked poll (see below), then this last point is irrelevant - all voters will have the opportunity to rank every nominee.
Gavin Chipper wrote:The only thing I would suggest is that it might be worth mentioning in this thread if someone nominates a game outside the top three of GOTW, so that others can look at it and decide for themselves. There are top quality games that were completely overlooked by GOTW (although I think most maxes in the news feed has helped this to some extent now) and if someone finds one of these games to nominate, it's unlikely that others will nominate it without it being drawn to their attention.
This also seems a good idea. Does anyone have an objection to this, in that it may give undue coverage to the outside-top-3 games (they would be singled out as potential nominees, whereas the top-3 games would simply be a part of the archive list)?
Gavin Chipper wrote:Also, does this have to be decided by a forum poll? I think score voting is better, so maybe we could PM Adam scores from 0-10 (a wider range for a wider project) for each of the nominated games, and Adam adds them all up.
I'm happy to do this if it's what people would prefer. I'd like to hear some more opinions on this - would you prefer a forum poll (the game with the most votes wins, as last year) or a ranked poll (based on Gevin's idea, games are ranked from 1-10 and the game with the highest average score wins*), or something else entirely?
*
Would I be right to calculate the winner from a ranked poll by the highest average score or the highest aggregate score? In my mind, the actual options for voting would be Abstain, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 - abstentions could have an effect on the outcome by aggregate score, but not by average score, so I'm leaning towards average score for the final rankings, should this polling method be implemented.