Voting systems on parties
category: general [glöplog]
DigiLAB 2004 was just held here in Skien, Norway. On small parties like this with few sceners, the classical thing happens: Someone releases ugly joke prods in pixel/render etc and goes arround and gets all their friends to vote for them. The result is that some ugly cheap prod wins, while the guys who has worked a lot on their releases got their mailbox full of beard (old norwegian saying ;) ). Get my point?
Isnt it about time we do something to prevent things like this? why does votings always have to deside? It was like 10 votes for the winner... Does that diserve a prize of 150 euros?
My suggestion is that if there are too few votes in a compo (for example less than 5 * <number_of_entries> votes), then a jury (democrew) will decide who will win. Of course the jury can not compete in the compos.
Or does anyone else have any suggestions?
Isnt it about time we do something to prevent things like this? why does votings always have to deside? It was like 10 votes for the winner... Does that diserve a prize of 150 euros?
My suggestion is that if there are too few votes in a compo (for example less than 5 * <number_of_entries> votes), then a jury (democrew) will decide who will win. Of course the jury can not compete in the compos.
Or does anyone else have any suggestions?
duckers: the jury (democrew, partyorganizers, whoever) are still friends of someone participating in the compos.
'democracy' isn't nice ;-)
'democracy' isn't nice ;-)
Yes, voting on gamerparties sucks. For the voting to suceed, the people voting must know why prod A is better than prod B. Thus the people voting has to take the compos seriously. Which is rarely the case when 75% of the atenders are gamers ;)
Simply attend to pure scene parties, where we actually look up to and respect each others work. And yes, I belive newly started parties like DigiLab with gamers and sceners would be better og with a jury. At least until all the attenders has enough knowledge to cast a serious vote.
Simply attend to pure scene parties, where we actually look up to and respect each others work. And yes, I belive newly started parties like DigiLab with gamers and sceners would be better og with a jury. At least until all the attenders has enough knowledge to cast a serious vote.
s/ og / off
we been having that problem ever since the first edition of inerciademoparty. here are your options:
a) make it selected jury only (and lecture them about voting properly before voting)
b) dont have compos and just distribute the prizes by who needs them the best. make up names to justify the prizes if you have to; like, best new group prize, best plasma effect prize, best disqualified due to passing size limit 4k intro submission. etc etc. if you got the balls to be the one to deliver the prizes and the can abstract yourself from the "jobs for the boys" "my friend is better then yours" syndromes people wont complain that much and will return next year.
c) dont give a fuck about the results couz your other co-organizers dont want to let you do things how you want them; just keep lecturing your compo voters to vote properly. (which you wont ever succeed in doing but whos paying attention to that)
we havent fixed the problems at inerciademoparty. we have opted for a halfway decision, we have votes counting 50% from the public and 50% from the participating people. and we try to also re-distribute the prizes when we have the results, so that some people dont get things twice and proper prizes go to people who'll do the better use out of them. last year there were still some bad results. (crmx had the best 4k, 64k and demo and didnt win anything in any of the compos, 4k was disq for too big size, was the only decent entry on the compo... 64k scored a tied 2nd place with s!p while the newbie group with the most buddies at the partypalce won 1st place. another new group won demo 1st place, crmx's got 2nd, but that was a one crucial vote diference..
a) make it selected jury only (and lecture them about voting properly before voting)
b) dont have compos and just distribute the prizes by who needs them the best. make up names to justify the prizes if you have to; like, best new group prize, best plasma effect prize, best disqualified due to passing size limit 4k intro submission. etc etc. if you got the balls to be the one to deliver the prizes and the can abstract yourself from the "jobs for the boys" "my friend is better then yours" syndromes people wont complain that much and will return next year.
c) dont give a fuck about the results couz your other co-organizers dont want to let you do things how you want them; just keep lecturing your compo voters to vote properly. (which you wont ever succeed in doing but whos paying attention to that)
we havent fixed the problems at inerciademoparty. we have opted for a halfway decision, we have votes counting 50% from the public and 50% from the participating people. and we try to also re-distribute the prizes when we have the results, so that some people dont get things twice and proper prizes go to people who'll do the better use out of them. last year there were still some bad results. (crmx had the best 4k, 64k and demo and didnt win anything in any of the compos, 4k was disq for too big size, was the only decent entry on the compo... 64k scored a tied 2nd place with s!p while the newbie group with the most buddies at the partypalce won 1st place. another new group won demo 1st place, crmx's got 2nd, but that was a one crucial vote diference..
http://electionmethods.org/Condorcet.htm is pretty darn fair. too bad we couldn't get it implemented for this years tg.. next year.
Popular voting worked just fine at Pilgrimage 2003. Our voting system is desribed here. RaD Man has simplified the point system for 2004, so that you only vote for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place within each compo.
Maybe ppl should just sign a "no-i-wont-for-crap" contract before voting :)
the public fakevoting at underground conference was the fairest voting process i ever witnessed. i recemmend that :)
lega: you only had 1 decent demo, ofcourse it worked perfectly..
- Voting for yourself is allowed.
- All registered Pilgrimage attendees are eligible to vote. (Registration is free.)
Lovely.
- All registered Pilgrimage attendees are eligible to vote. (Registration is free.)
Lovely.
I recommend the "raise-your-hands" system they used at WOEST 2002.
PostIT(tm)'s have also proven to be rather effective.. :)
Gloom: I can't quite get why Condorcet voting would be any good in solving the problems with joke productions and unappreciate voters.
There is no such thing as objective results. Results are based on subjective preferences and each voter has different set of criteria on which he evaluates the entries.
Even when we "educate" the voters, we impose upon them our own models of "what is a quality production". To some extent that is wise, but I hardly want to see party visitors forced into the same mould.
As for "intelligent sceners, who can appreciate quality entries" - well, some can and some seem to be able only to vote for the friends (or even against their enemies). Just look at BP04 results.
Juries? Even easier to influence and manipulate. Don't get me even started about the possibilities of an irresponsible compo organizer has for manipulating a jury, or a malign jury member sabotaging the jury.
Bottom line: public voting is not the optimal solution, but when augmented with good pre-selection and juries and shifting of voting power, we have a pretty good solution.
There is no such thing as objective results. Results are based on subjective preferences and each voter has different set of criteria on which he evaluates the entries.
Even when we "educate" the voters, we impose upon them our own models of "what is a quality production". To some extent that is wise, but I hardly want to see party visitors forced into the same mould.
As for "intelligent sceners, who can appreciate quality entries" - well, some can and some seem to be able only to vote for the friends (or even against their enemies). Just look at BP04 results.
Juries? Even easier to influence and manipulate. Don't get me even started about the possibilities of an irresponsible compo organizer has for manipulating a jury, or a malign jury member sabotaging the jury.
Bottom line: public voting is not the optimal solution, but when augmented with good pre-selection and juries and shifting of voting power, we have a pretty good solution.
condorcet is actually pretty good (designed in fact) to fight things like: placing your prod on top and crap prod in the middle to avoid voting for one competitor you know is going to come close in the competition. I've seen that done many times.
Quote:
I recommend the "raise-your-hands" system they used at WOEST 2002.
Please tell me you are joking. :)
But yes, voting is never going to be perfect, no matter what... Just look at who we have for president!
I liked the "show your ass cheeks" at robinson boozo 04
yep. the robinson boozoe voting ruled.
i think asm's voting system is quite fine (if i'm not mistaken 'bout its principles). the only thing that can fuck it up us huuuuge amount of non-scene ppl.
so idea is selling some "scenish" tickets to ppl who can answer some scene-related questions right ( or fill some test-form ) and set higher priority to voters with scene-tickets. like 5:1 or 10:1 will do. or even 20:1 :D
so what do you think ?
so idea is selling some "scenish" tickets to ppl who can answer some scene-related questions right ( or fill some test-form ) and set higher priority to voters with scene-tickets. like 5:1 or 10:1 will do. or even 20:1 :D
so what do you think ?
aaaaannnnnddddd PPPPRRRRRREEEEEJJJJJJUUUUUUUUUURRRRRYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!
The far best results we got where when we used a votingsystem at underscore wich allowed you to rank prods instead of vote 1,2,3,4...
You simply voted 0...5 on each production, this allows you to vote for friends AND for good productions, it worked perfectly.. Still you can "cheat", but the majority wont.
You simply voted 0...5 on each production, this allows you to vote for friends AND for good productions, it worked perfectly.. Still you can "cheat", but the majority wont.
stefan, you got a good point there. rating each prod rather than ranking them means, people dont have to penalise a good prod when they vote themselves high (or a joke prod high).
it also means, at a small party, if demo a is clearly great and demo b very bad, people can express that by a high score to the first and a low score to the second, rather than having to give just 1st place and 2nd place votes (meaning the results could be relatively close). that in turn means that when those who decide to vote for their friends who made demo b, it's less likely to screw the results, as there's too big a gap from the other votes already. if you see what i mean.
the downside is, it's more effort (especially on a big party) to rate a lot of demos, not just pick your top 3.
it also means, at a small party, if demo a is clearly great and demo b very bad, people can express that by a high score to the first and a low score to the second, rather than having to give just 1st place and 2nd place votes (meaning the results could be relatively close). that in turn means that when those who decide to vote for their friends who made demo b, it's less likely to screw the results, as there's too big a gap from the other votes already. if you see what i mean.
the downside is, it's more effort (especially on a big party) to rate a lot of demos, not just pick your top 3.
abyss: it does not solve the problem of joke-productions if people continue to vote for them, no, but it's a pretty darn smart method of general voting which more or less eliminates the problems assiciated with people ranking themselves very high and leaving other places empty/giving those votes to very bad productions instead of the better prods who really deserved them.
btw; tg considers the debian.org-way of condorcet-voting instead of the original ruleset. more information here.
btw; tg considers the debian.org-way of condorcet-voting instead of the original ruleset. more information here.
Why should rating each prod be more effort than pick just 3? If you did not judge every prod, your vote is crap anyway. And for me, it´s easier to judge every prod on its own rather than to decide a 1-2-3 order if there are e.g. 3 good prods, but none of it is a real favourite.
I agree with TS here, I remember giving up trying to vote at M/S when there where shitloads of great prods in all compos, it would've just taken me way to long to vote seriously. Being given a paper/website with screenshoots of the demos and being able to fill in my rating on that demo takes a lot less time, ofcourse, you shouldnt have to rank everyone, then it will just be zero or average (2,5 or so).