Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
- New posts
- No new posts
Currently online
[Archived] Time for a new community playthrough?
If this should happen again, and I’m sure it will, I think we need to pay closer attention to the “rules” or at least what we think the rules should be.
Doom is right. I made a tactical error by voting for a competing game. My mistake.
Chrissie made a mistake by trying to break the deadlock before the final votes were counted. She had the right to break the tie. Just not before the final votes were tallied. And by making a “sacrificial” vote for Lighthouse, she may have altered sympathies.
So by calling it a tie, we were all allowed one vote. Chrissie, at that time, was not allowed to vote for Lighthouse because she had only one vote to cast. And it was already cast for the game she nominated. The only way she could vote for Lighthouse is if she withdrew her nomination for her own game.
So, was the final result fair? Don’t know.
Do suggest that, in the future, the person keeping track of the score not have a vested interest in the outcome.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
Chrissie made a mistake by trying to break the deadlock before the final votes were counted. She had the right to break the tie. Just not before the final votes were tallied. And by making a “sacrificial” vote for Lighthouse, she may have altered sympathies.
If you want to revisit the rules that’s your prerogative but I myself will not take part because I’m sick to death of the arguments that ensue.
As the ‘rules’ stand it was down to me to break the deadlock but the deadlock was broken fair & square by MikeKelly’s vote.
So what mistake was that?
Oh, I’d chosen to be transparent & stated that if the tie wasn’t broken I would choose Lighthouse. So what! - organising the CPT voting is not a covert exercise so no need to sneak around & it was only fair to anyone that may assume that due to my “vested interest” I would choose Unforeseen Incidents. Why that would alter sympathies beats me & possibly insulting to subsequent voters who I’m sure know their own minds.
As for being a “sacrificial” vote - you can say that again because although Lighthouse lost you still want your bowl of blood.
Also to be clear, making the decision of which game should be chosen in the event of a tie is exactly that - a decision! It’s not a vote so how many votes I was or wasn’t entitled to is irrelevant!
So, was the final result fair? Don’t know….....
.....Do suggest that, in the future, the person keeping track of the score not have a vested interest in the outcome.
To respond to the first comment - the final result couldn’t be fairer - Unforeseen Incidents was in the lead by 3 votes.
And as for the second comment - who the hell wants to get involved in this potentially contentious thread unless they’ve got a vested interest?
A more useful discussion might be to see if there are any criteria we can agree on for a game to win in a tie-breaker situation aside from the tally voter’s decision?
E.g Already a game without a leader can’t win.
If the deadlock hadn’t been broken I would have declared Lighthouse the winner based on its ‘record’ of being nominated a few times as opposed to Unforeseen Incidents.
How reliable is that though as there are no statistics & therefore no clear record unless you want to browse the 17 current & 249 archived pages of this thread? I.e. how would you clarify which game had the most nominations if Lighthouse was up against another game that had been nominated frequently?
Just one idea - could the decision be made on whether a game has been reviewed & its score?
To be quite honest I can’t remember any time when a tie-breaker hasn’t been resolved by additional votes rather than the decision of the tally voter so possibly this discussion isn’t really needed?
Just one idea - could the decision be made on whether a game has been reviewed & its score?
That’s kind of like giving the reviewer a vote—when most likely the reviewer won’t be joining the playthrough. Also a reviewer’s score/review may already have been taken into account by indivividual voters.
To be quite honest I can’t remember any time when a tie-breaker hasn’t been resolved by additional votes rather than the decision of the tally voter so possibly this discussion isn’t really needed?
I agree. I don’t see anything wrong with the way the tie breaking was handled.
Just one idea - could the decision be made on whether a game has been reviewed & its score?
That’s kind of like giving the reviewer a vote—when most likely the reviewer won’t be joining the playthrough. Also a reviewer’s score/review may already have been taken into account by indivividual voters.
That’s a very good point!
To be quite honest I can’t remember any time when a tie-breaker hasn’t been resolved by additional votes rather than the decision of the tally voter so possibly this discussion isn’t really needed?
I agree. I don’t see anything wrong with the way the tie breaking was handled.
Thank you. I especially appreciate that comment coming from someone who voted for Lighthouse.
If you want to revisit the rules that’s your prerogative but I myself will not take part because I’m sick to death of the arguments that ensue.
Easiest solution is to have a mod run the voting process.
As the ‘rules’ stand it was down to me to break the deadlock but the deadlock was broken fair & square by MikeKelly’s vote.
So what mistake was that?
Well. the fact that you announced what your tie-breaking decision would be two days before you needed to make that decision is a bit problematic.
Sorry you feel
I am as well. I don’t think the end game of this voting process went well.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
If you want to revisit the rules that’s your prerogative but I myself will not take part because I’m sick to death of the arguments that ensue.
Easiest solution is to have a mod run the voting process.
You mean like kiddies in a playground asking ‘teacher’ what game to play?
Actually the voting process went well until you started creating arguments when your game didn’t win but that’s nothing new.
As the ‘rules’ stand it was down to me to break the deadlock but the deadlock was broken fair & square by MikeKelly’s vote.
So what mistake was that?Well. the fact that you announced what your tie-breaking decision would be two days before you needed to make that decision is a bit problematic.
Why do you see that as problematic?
Tim,
I have no trouble with the way Chrissie handled the voting process. I can imagine the criticizm she would have gotten if the tie had stood and she decided to choose her own game. She was trying to be fair.
Regarding the rules, I don’t think a rehash will change anything, especially because there is a need to be flexible in the case of a tie. We have the basics:
1. Two weeks will be given for nominations and voting. Members may vote for as many games as they like.
2. A game must have a leader. If, by the end of voting, no one steps up to lead, that game will be eliminated no matter its vote tally.
3. An additional week of voting will be added if there’s a tie. Everyone will vote for only one game.
4. If a tie still stands at the end of the third week, the person doing the tally will make the final decision. He/She may request input from others and could consider how many times a game has been nominated and come close to winning previously. The final decision, however, is the tally keeper’s.
“Rainy days should be spent at home with a cup of tea and a good book.” -Bill Watterson
Thank you Lady Kestrel!
The only thing I would have changed (and that’s a minor thing) is that in the second round those who voted multiple games get to keep their votes for all games, or withdraw some votes if they want. This way, the second round motivates new people to break the tie, instead of those who already voted (thus, more participants ) If the tie stays after the second round , everyone who voted multiple must choose only one game. Like I said, this is a minor thing (and probably, in most cases redundant if the first round is reasonably long), and I don’t remember now how the second round acted in terms of bringing new people in the past.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
The idea is to break the tie in the second round, Diego. If you voted for both (or 3? 4?) tied games, it’s time to make a choice. Those who voted for only one of the tied games may change or withdraw their votes if they wish, and anyone else who is interested in playing one of them may vote. Sometimes we get a new player or two after the winner has been determined, but I think two initial voting weeks and an additional week for a tie is plenty of time for players to make their choices.
“Rainy days should be spent at home with a cup of tea and a good book.” -Bill Watterson
Was that two weeks for a first round? Ok, then. I was under the impression that it was more like a one week, LOL. Another idea has sprung to my mind - you get to vote multiple games in the second round, but if there’s a tie at the end, there’s no more time for new votes, and those who already voted make a decision on the spot by choosing only one game. It doesn’t make voting process any longer (well, perhaps a day or two until those who voted check the forum). You can see that I insist on preserving the multiple choices until the very end, mostly because I’m undecided to encourage the greatest number of members to join the game, and if we allow people to vote multiple games until the very end, the participants tally will be higher for each of the game, and the chances you will be motivated to enter the playthrough with people you communicate on the forum are increased.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
I don’t think it would work out that way, and I prefer k.i.s.s. when it comes to organizing something like this.
“Rainy days should be spent at home with a cup of tea and a good book.” -Bill Watterson
Why do you see that as problematic?
If you don’t see it, then there’s nothing I can do to explain it.
Regardless, even thought I voted for it, it’s probably inappropriate for me to join now.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
i suggest changing the thread title to Time for a new community playthrough Arguments ..
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread