Whose Running Things? Need Help!

[skeezix]

Sounds like a pretty good deal .. levi+monkey+christoph

jeff

 

[levi]

Sounds like a pretty good deal .. levi+monkey+christoph

jeff

Okay, sounds good to me. Monkeychops is nominate-keep!

Okay, monkeychops. If you want to make a new nominations thread and maintain a list of what everyone nominates, whoever's gamekeeping can pick out a couple of genres at random and then put up to 10 games in each genre to the vote each game. Sound fair?

I should warn you though - checking up on the 29 games nominated for the second game took me a chunk of time (mainly trying to work out a fair genre for the games I'd not heard of) - and I still managed to balls up checking Star Soldier!

What's the limit to the number of entries in a poll by the way?

 

[Christoph.Krn]

Alright -- I guess Levi and Christoh.Krn are stepping up as Gamekeeps!

Wait - Gamekeep, me? Well, I don't think I'm the right person for this job. I don't have the time that's needed for this - I'm currently not even taking part in the league. I'm just here for the fun of making things run efficiently and logical in order to prevent the league from starving like so many others do/did. So you might add me as a "how-the-hell-are-we-going-to-do-this"-Sanekeep if you wish as long as I'm not /expected/ to perform routine tasks (most definitely I won't at all).

We would have one thread that all nominations were posted to, I would gather them and list them in the first post sorted by genre and also subtract off games once we've played them. Seems to me like that should make life easier for levi, and that's just about the level of commitment I could put towards this. [...] This would be very doable for me.

It seems to me that the effort needed is non-linear to the number of games submitted (it will get harder and harder to keep an overview), with time having an additional amplificating (and stress inducing!) effect. Also, we can't know how many people will join/leave the league in the future.

This burden may very well grow out of proportion quickly. We should implement some form of automation to prevent CHAOS AND DESTRUCTION™. We could do this in a way simlar to what I once had suggested for Ed's order numbers. This way, we could automatically parse the suggested games, which would mean no more manual handling of duplicates and no risk of a game slipping through.

[...] put up to 10 games in each genre to the vote each game. Sound fair?

Personally, I don't see a point in having such restriction, because 10 is just an arbitrary number. That's much in the same way that top 10 lists don't make sense, because very rarely will the number of important points which would actually make sense in the list equal exactly 10 (most times there would in fact be either more or less points). Therefore, a maximum of 10 might or might not work well, we can't say. The only way to find out is to try, but the result won't be reliable and/or might not be useful.

But I believe that this particular step would work in any way as long as we don't put arbitrary restrictions on the way it should be done. After all, taking responsibility for variety and fairness is inherent to the nature of a Gamekeep's job.

We can run the score setting (really need a better name for that) at the same time as the round 3 nominations.

What about "Score recipe"? We'd discuss the score recipe in "Score recipe for round x" threads. This term is not ambiguous, not awkward/very long and it's self-explanatory even though it's less literal.

Definitions of terms:

• "Scoring model": The system being used to determine the final score for (a) particular game(s).
• "Round": Also called "Game round". The period in which a particular set of games is being played before switching to the next games. This period is currently 14 days in duration.
• "Season": The timeframe during which the complete tournament will take place. As soon as the season is over, scores will be accumulated in the way described in the league FAQ, the winner(s) announced and potential prizes (if there are any) given out.

If everyone is okay with these terms and their respective descriptions, does not have any suggestions, questions or complaints (my English isn't perfect, sorry for that, please point out any mistakes), then you can add (parts of) this list to the FAQ if you want, sxeezix.

 

[levi]

Yeah, I'd be in favour of calling the next game Season 1 *round* 3. Having a game where we play two games was in danger of getting confusing.

'Score recipe' sounds a bit strange in English. It's an idea though, and I'll give it more thought tomorrow.

 

[Christoph.Krn]

'Score recipe' sounds a bit strange in English.

Why exactly?

Are "credit recipe" or "score model" any better?

Having a game where we play two games was in danger of getting confusing.

Yeah, the current situation is indeed confuses.

 

[levi]

[...] put up to 10 games in each genre to the vote each game. Sound fair?

Personally, I don't see a point in having such restriction, because 10 is just an arbitrary number. That's much in the same way that top 10 lists don't make sense, because very rarely will the number of important points which would actually make sense in the list equal exactly 10 (most times there would in fact be either more or less points). Therefore, a maximum of 10 might or might not work well, we can't say. The only way to find out is to try, but the result won't be reliable and/or might not be useful.

But I believe that this particular step would work in any way as long as we don't put arbitrary restrictions on the way it should be done. After all, taking responsibility for variety and fairness is inherent to the nature of a Gamekeep's job.

Well, just as a baseline set of rules, I reckon the poll should have as many entries as there were people who voted last (this) time ('n') minus one - so that even if all the first n-1 people vote for different games, the last person will have the casting vote in effect.

'Score recipe' sounds a bit strange in English.

Why exactly?

Um, good question. As a native English speaker, it's hard for me to say! I think it's something to do with the countability of the first noun, but I'm not sure.

Are "credit recipe" or "score model" any better?

Ah, now - 'scoring model' works for me. 'Scoring' is an uncountable noun as opposed to 'score'. So, how about 'scoring model discussion'?

That's assuming we need a new thread for it. I'm tempted to keep the vote thread alive for the scoring.

Re Monkeychops idea: one reason why I like it (other than the fact it makes my life much easier) is that it simplifies the schedule a lot - in the first week of round n you vote for the games in round n+1, and in the second week you hold the scoring model discussion. No need for a complicated four week rolling schedule, and no need for people to nominate games they're going to be playing after the game they're going to be playing after the game they're currently playing.

I don't think the task is significantly non-linear. We can ask people to nominate games in a standard format, so mostly it can just be copied and pasted in (after matching the genre with whatever list of genres monkeychops ends up with). No need to remove games if people 'leave' the tournament (and besides, people don't leave they just stop playing). Sorting the entries avoids duplicates. He can begin with the list I put up for voting in that thread if he likes, though note I did screw up the alphabetical ordering in at least one place, and I'd recommend redoing the genres, since I just did those on the spur of the moment and some of them aren't entirely serious. Not that Rot is meant to be entirely serious!

 

[MonkeyChops]

Okay, sounds good to me. Monkeychops is nominate-keep!

Okay, monkeychops. If you want to make a new nominations thread and maintain a list of what everyone nominates, whoever's gamekeeping can pick out a couple of genres at random and then put up to 10 games in each genre to the vote each game. Sound fair?

I should warn you though - checking up on the 29 games nominated for the second game took me a chunk of time (mainly trying to work out a fair genre for the games I'd not heard of) - and I still managed to balls up checking Star Soldier!

What's the limit to the number of entries in a poll by the way?

If its all contained in one thread, I can just have email notification of that thread and add to the list on the fly from my pandora or my phone or whatever, I should hope I can keep up with one thread. As far as genres go, I'll prob just go with what wiki says it is or maybe use a site like gamespot. I'd suggest only having like 5 games per genre and 2 genres per vote for a total of 10 games to vote on. Having a screenshot of each and a link to the wiki for each game in the vote would be great for people to do a little research before they vote. Any more than 10 would be hard to research for most people. As sheezix said though, I think you should have the final say in what game we play regardless of the poll results. You could conceivably have a poll for what genres to play also for each round but I think it would be best if you just cycled through the available genres from the nominee list. I'll try to provide a link to a wiki with each game to make picking them easier for you levi, but don't hold me to that just yet, although I could make that a requirement of nominating a game... yea that sounds good, what do you think?

It seems to me that the effort needed is non-linear to the number of games submitted (it will get harder and harder to keep an overview), with time having an additional amplificating (and stress inducing!) effect. Also, we can't know how many people will join/leave the league in the future.

This burden may very well grow out of proportion quickly. We should implement some form of automation to prevent CHAOS AND DESTRUCTION™. We could do this in a way simlar to what I once had suggested for Ed's order numbers. This way, we could automatically parse the suggested games, which would mean no more manual handling of duplicates and no risk of a game slipping through.

Yes it very well good get out of hand easily. For now could record the name of who nominated the game and what date it was nominated as well with each game. If it gets out of hand I can restrict nominations by either date, total per player, or remove nominees of players who have dropped. And I could always have a limit of nominees per person per round. Time will tell. Obviously only ROT players should nominate, perhaps we should have a thread for sign-ups so we know who all is playing?

I'll get the nominee thread going later today with any luck.

 

[levi]

As far as genres go, I'll prob just go with what wiki says it is or maybe use a site like gamespot. I'd suggest only having like 5 games per genre and 2 genres per vote for a total of 10 games to vote on. Having a screenshot of each and a link to the wiki for each game in the vote would be great for people to do a little research before they vote. Any more than 10 would be hard to research for most people. As sheezix said though, I think you should have the final say in what game we play regardless of the poll results. You could conceivably have a poll for what genres to play also for each round but I think it would be best if you just cycled through the available genres from the nominee list. I'll try to provide a link to a wiki with each game to make picking them easier for you levi, but don't hold me to that just yet, although I could make that a requirement of nominating a game... yea that sounds good, what do you think?

See my last post for my suggested poll size - although six people have voted in the vote so far, so coincidentally that would make the next vote 5 games long for both of the genres we end up going with.

Re what genres to play, I was thinking of doing it randomish. Pull a name out of a hat, but put it back if we've already played that genre recently for example. Also, some genres will have very few games, so I'll need another genre to make up the numbers. Just play it by ear basically.

Asking people to link to wiki or mobygames and provide a screenshot when nominating is definitely a good idea. Although one game that was nominated for last time turned out not to have a page on either!

Obviously only ROT players should nominate, perhaps we should have a thread for sign-ups so we know who all is playing?

That's a good point. Hopefully the nominate thread will be self policing to a degree. The tournament is designed so that people can drop in and out though - if you play you get points, if you don't you don't. Should people be banned from nominating if they've got an intention to play that round but haven't played before? I say don't worry about it unless it becomes an issue.

 

[Pickle]

Im thinking of a better way to monitor scores and I think a good way might be to delete posts once the score has been recorded in the top post. This way i see new posts easier and I dont have to troll through every post any time I update the list. Opinions?

 

[levi]

Personally I quite like to see the story of the competition unfolding recorded in some way, which is why I strike out my old scores, and embolden my new scores - but I appreciate that it a fair bit of faff. The most important thing is ensuring the scorekeep can do his/her job as easily as possible though, so if you want us to delete old posts I'll go with that Pickle.

 

[MonkeyChops]

it's hard to resist the urge to gloat after posting a score. Maybe if the score thread was strictly for scores and nothing else _and_ we had another thread for each game to gloat in? Then You could just move non-score posts to their proper thread, with a word of warning or what-not.

 

[levi]

Yeah, the score-beating trash talking is an important part of this game IMO, but at the same time it makes scores harder to spot which is why I bold 'em.

 

[Christoph.Krn]

Well, just as a baseline set of rules, I reckon the poll should have as many entries as there were people who voted last (this) time ('n') minus one - so that even if all the first n-1 people vote for different games, the last person will have the casting vote in effect.

You're right, it's a good idea to restrict the number of games, but shouldn't it be n-2 since we want 2 games each round? Then again, the whole thing is not exactly predictable at all.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...] how about 'scoring model discussion'?

That's fine with me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...] one reason why I like it [the idea of a single dedicated nomination thread, explanatory note] (other than the fact it makes my life much easier) is that it simplifies the schedule a lot - in the first week of round n you vote for the games in round n+1, and in the second week you hold the scoring model discussion. No need for a complicated four week rolling schedule, and no need for people to nominate games they're going to be playing after the game they're going to be playing after the game they're currently playing.

Just what I was thinking. It significantly simplifies the schedule. However, I still believe that having one single nomination thread requires careful preparation:

I don't think the task is significantly non-linear.

I tried making a list of the games suggested in "Best SNES games" on http://boards.openpandora.org/ , I expected it to be quite a bit of work but eventually stopped because it was much more work than I thought it would be. I don't see why we shouldn't have a standard format for nominating games and posting scores. Something like this:

	[b]----BEGIN NOMINATION LIST----[/b][list]
		[*][b]Name[/b]: [Obligatory. The name of the game the list describes.]
		[*][b]Genre[/b]: [The game's genre.]
		[*][b]Platforms[/b]: [List of platforms the game is availible on. Separated by commas, like so: "SNES,Mega Drive,Arcade". Do not include platforms on which the game is considerably different.]
		[*][b]Information[/b]: [If you have a good link to a website that explains the game, you can put it here.]
		[*][b]Screenshot[/b]: [A screenshot that's representative for the game.]
	[/list][b]----END NOMINATION LIST----[/b]

The result may look as follows:

----BEGIN NOMINATION LIST----

• Name: Yanothergame
• Genre: Adventure
• Platforms: PC,SNES,ZX Spectrum,Arcade
• Information: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christophkrn/with/4132725273/
• Screenshot:

----END NOMINATION LIST----

We can ask people to nominate games in a standard format, so mostly it can just be copied and pasted in (after matching the genre with whatever list of genres monkeychops ends up with).

Doing so would also enable automatic parsing of the thread, which is what I believe that we need.

No need to remove games if people 'leave' the tournament (and besides, people don't leave they just stop playing). Sorting the entries avoids duplicates.

The problem about duplicates is that they permanently lessen the efficiency of the single-thread method. The longer the thread gets, the more people will post their nominations without checking if they had already been posted by someone else. This is especially true if people join the league / start playing half way in.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that Rot is meant to be entirely serious!

Are you serious? ()

Also, this sentence is a lie.

 

[Christoph.Krn]

it's hard to resist the urge to gloat after posting a score. Maybe if the score thread was strictly for scores and nothing else _and_ we had another thread for each game to gloat in?

Yeah, the score-beating trash talking is an important part of this game IMO, [...]

I had the same thought. I now simply opened up another thread for "General League Talk And Other Regular Madness" where people may talk about anything that's related to the league but doesn't justify a separate thread.

 

[levi]

I think that people's score updates are an important part of the banter between people and if at all possible that banter shouldn't be split between two separate threads. But at the same time we need to make scorekeep's job in collecting the scores as easy as possible, since actually awarding the scores and maintaining the leaderboard is a job in itself. I'd really appreciate Pickle's thoughts on this.

 

[skeezix]

A bad bad bad idea is this .. way too much work involved, but it sprang to mine People post a score with some token beside it -- such as a smiley or "NEW" or something; when pickle (who is a mod and thus has super powers) scoops up the score, he edits and removes the token. If someone edits their post, they are required to put in the "NEW" flag again, so that pickle can ctrl-F and find it.

Pro -- easy to spot for pickle
Con -- lot of work for pickle, hard for newbies to remember, all around PITA
Con -- for non-mods who adopt the Scorekeep position, its infeasible.

So I don't suggest it, but I'll mention it anyway

jeff

 

[levi]

I've been bolding my latest score post, and going back and striking (and unbolding) my old score (easy, just replace those bees with esses), so Pickle can just look for the bold text. I don't find it too much work, but then I seem to spend more time in the forum than anyone else so far