Adventure Gamers - Forums

I have some suggestions that might make voting less hectic:
Nominations
Each interested person should nominate 1 or 2 games to be considered for the playthrough and mention why they want to play them.  The nomination period should run for a set time, perhaps a week or two.  Also, mention if you want to lead a game you’ve nominated.

Voting
Voting should begin after the nomination list is posted, and voters should vote for the 1 game they most want to play.  If there are other games on the list that a voter might play, those could be mentioned, but not counted in the initial votes.  They would just give us an idea of who might play when the voting is complete.

The above is, of course, open to discussion, but I thought it might be a way to streamline the voting process. 

Lady Kestrel - 21 April 2015 01:18 PM

Voting
Voting should begin after the nomination list is posted, and voters should vote for the 1 game they most want to play.  If there are other games on the list that a voter might play, those could be mentioned, but not counted in the initial votes.  They would just give us an idea of who might play when the voting is complete.

This is the part I have a small problem with. I only vote for games that I’m willing to play. In the last nomination/voting process I voted for ten games, and would have played if any one of the ten won. Unfortunately, as has been the tendency of late, none won. I think a person should be allowed to vote for any game that he/she is committed to play.

It’s a little different over on the Casual Playthrough voting thread. There people are voting on the game they most want to play, but, I think they will play whatever game wins. In a CPT if the game(s) they voted for don’t win, they are unlikely to play.

No one prevents you to actually join the playthrough and play it even though you haven’t voted for it. That’s why I think LK’s proposal sounds good - it’s less work for both sides!

Nothing should be written in stone, though. But as this is on a voluntary basis (traditionally, the volunteer takes up the hard work to organize and count the votes as seen in this thread and this current one. Well, two persons, really), I think it’s only fair that the person who takes up the job should set any rules he/she think will work best.

To be quite honest, then I don’t think that the voting process needs to be streamlined or improved. I mean it is not that complicated, vote on and nominate the games you want to play in a CP, and in the end the game most people want to play wins!

Lady Kestrel - 21 April 2015 01:18 PM

Nominations
Each interested person should nominate 1 or 2 games to be considered for the playthrough and mention why they want to play them.  The nomination period should run for a set time, perhaps a week or two.  Also, mention if you want to lead a game you’ve nominated.

Sure, restricting the number of games you can nominate, can reduce the number of candidates, but personally I have absolutely no problem with many candidates, the more the merrier I say.

Also splitting the process up in two, will just add extra time to the whole voting process.

But if others want to reduce the number of candidates, then I can live with this.

Lady Kestrel - 21 April 2015 01:18 PM

Voting
Voting should begin after the nomination list is posted, and voters should vote for the 1 game they most want to play.  If there are other games on the list that a voter might play, those could be mentioned, but not counted in the initial votes.  They would just give us an idea of who might play when the voting is complete.

That would be a major problem as I see it.
Lets say that there are three nominated games I would like to play, instead of just voting for the one I want to play the most, I would instead play tactical and wait to vote until the last second, and then vote for the one of the three that already has the most votes and the best chance of actually winning.

diego - 21 April 2015 02:37 PM

I think it’s only fair that the person who takes up the job should set any rules he/she think will work best.

Just be prepared for a lot of criticism regardless of what rules you decide on

Iznogood - 21 April 2015 02:58 PM

Just be prepared for a lot of criticism regardless of what rules you decide on

Great. That might motivate the criticizer to actually announce him/herself as the organizer for the next voting. Instead of one, two persons doing it all the time.

I think it depends on what people are looking for. Personally I probably would go with 3 for both, nominating and voting. So that some of the clutter would be weeded away and there’d be more focus on the games people seriously want to play, instead of just “yeah, I can play that one”. But if it’s just about hoardings as many participants as possible, the current method is just fine.

diego - 21 April 2015 03:03 PM

Iznogood - 21 April 2015 02:58 PM

Just be prepared for a lot of criticism regardless of what rules you decide on

Great. That might motivate the criticizer to actually announce him/herself as the organizer for the next voting. Instead of one, two persons doing it all the time.

Although there have only been eight, and I grant there are fewer participants, but I’ve done all the CCPT vote tallies, and it’s not that big a deal. I don’t do a lot of bells and whistles, which may add to the workload. But that’s the organizers choice.

I think there should be only one hard and fast rule. If you nominate a game, you must be willing to lead it. I know I’ve violated that rule. But that was when it wasn’t a rule. If it became a rule, I think it would cut down on the number of nominated games…dramatically! Which would certainly simplify the process.

rtrooney - 21 April 2015 07:13 PM

I think there should be only one hard and fast rule. If you nominate a game, you must be willing to lead it. I know I’ve violated that rule. But that was when it wasn’t a rule. If it became a rule, I think it would cut down on the number of nominated games…dramatically! Which would certainly simplify the process.

Many people nominate games they’ve never played before, simply because they’d like to try them with a group, so I’m not sure if that would work.

Well I can certainly see how people nominating two games they’ve never played, and being limited to one vote for the game they would most like to play would simplify things. Not! Sorry for the sarcasm.

Truly, if that’s the case. I think the best bet would be that they would hope their game(s) would be nominated. And then they could vote for them.

Of course they could “lobby” the group saying “Please, O Please, will somebody nominate Syberia2! I’ve never played it, but want to. I will vote for it if it’s nominated.”

Oscar,
I’ve enjoyed having a leader in these playthroughs.  Someone who has played the game knows approximately how long it will take and the kinds of puzzles the players will encounter, so s/he will be able to give hints and warnings about possible glitches or dead ends.  Also, a leader just generally keeps things moving.

Oscar - 21 April 2015 09:44 PM

What’s wrong with leading a playthrough if you haven’t played the game?

I think all these semi-professional playthroughs we’ve had recently are great, but there’s nothing wrong with jumping in and saying straight up ‘look, I’ve never played this before but I’ll do my best and let’s all work through it together and see how it goes’.

The problem is that as a playthrough leader you need to set the breakpoints, and you can’t really say to the participants: “this week we will play until we get to the big oak tree”, if you don’t know there is a big oak tree in the game!

I agree that you don’t need to know the game like the back of your own hand, but there is some minimum knowledge that you need to have, in order to lead a CP of a game.


Anyway, when will the nomination/voting process start, and what rules have you decided on Diego?

Iznogood - 22 April 2015 11:09 AM

Anyway, when will the nomination/voting process start, and what rules have you decided on Diego?

Oh, if you’re impatient, start it right now!

(in other words - I’m still waiting for a volunteer. I’m in a tight schedule this week )

diego - 22 April 2015 01:20 PM

Oh, if you’re impatient, start it right now!

(in other words - I’m still waiting for a volunteer. I’m in a tight schedule this week )

I thought that you had volunteered yourself, but sure, if no one else wants to handle this, then I volunteer to do it.

Any objections?