GiTD Rule Change Voting! Voting ends 7/7/13 6PM GMT

28 posts

Flag Post

Come one come all, to vote for the future of the Game in Ten Days contest.

A few things first:
1) Your voting eligibility for this specific thread is subject, but nobody should have to worry about not being eligible

2)A great deal of thanks to Elyzius for the previous thread regarding issues to be voted on

3) Now, to expedite the coming of the next GiTD, for now we’re going to vote on the most important issue, and continue from there while we start a new contest. (I’ve been a bit busy, so I’m sorry for not doing this earlier, I should have taken the time out to do this).

How this will work
We’ll vote on a change, and the winner will be used as the voting process for the next GiTD. After that, the change will be discussed and reviewed, and if it’s still appealing may move it as a new rule.
In the event of a tie we will try every option that tied across different contests. Unless someone wants to compromise to just try one at first. We’re going to give every option a chance if the community thinks it’s the best change for GiTD


Issue # 1: Voters


Option A:

Voters should have been members of Kongregate for at least three months prior to the start of the voting period, and they should be at least level 3.

Option B:

voting to Kong members only. No new members are allowed to vote. This is a broader version of the above proposal.

Option C:

Appoint or elect judges ahead of time. Judges should be known for their impartiality and their sense of what makes a good game. They should also not be allowed to enter a game in a GitD that they are judging. They may be elected into position or chosen by the GitD organizer, possibly from a list of volunteers.

Option D:

Only votes that come with valid feedback on each entry will be counted. If this rule is upheld strictly, voters who fail to give valid feedback on a single entry will not have their votes counted.

Option E:

Only known game developers and those participating in the GitD may vote.

Option F:

Only those participating in the current GitD may vote. This is a stricter variation of the above proposed rule.

Option G:

Past and present participants to the GitD may vote without being questioned, but all others may have their votes rejected by the GitD organizer and/or past and present GitD participants if those votes are deemed unfit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MossyStump:
1) Your voting eligibility for this specific thread is subject, but nobody should have to worry about not being eligible

Subject to what? That sentence doesn’t look complete to me. Also, shouldn’t we have a debate and a vote about who’s allowed to vote for new GiTD rules? After, of course, a debate and a vote about who’s allowed to vote for that?

And assuming my voting rights actually pass muster, then G, even though it’s way too vague as worded.

 
Flag Post

I vote for D, but one question, what is exactly considered as “valid feedback”? I don’t tend to write long, detailed reviews because I have trouble expressing myself in English, but I always try to play all the GiTD games.

Some short reviews of the options:
A: It would clear the problem of alt voting, but if someone really wants to win the GiTD they can make accounts months before the GiTD and level them up, and may be unfair for legit new users.
B: More or less the same as A.
C: GiTD is a contest in where all the community can participate, both in game creating and voting, and I think that shouldn’t be changed. It would give the contest more professionalism, though.
D: It makes sure everyone has played every game, and also gives feedback to the developer.
E: Games aren’t only for developers, are they? In fact, I think voting in the GiTD should be encouraged outside the developer community.
F: Same as E, plus it may cause strategic voting.
G: As I said, being a developer shouldn’t give any extra right when voting. And like Ace_Blue said, it’s too vague. What is the criteria for denying votes?

 
Flag Post

B.
This is a massive overreaction IMO.

 
Flag Post

D.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with inviting friends and family to come and vote, but having them blindly vote for you is…unfair.

 
Flag Post

I say D, a non-strict version. Giving a valid feedback on at least some of the games is a prerequisite to knowingly select a “best game”. A voter IMHO needs to know what he’s voting for. A “valid feedback” is a set of information that signifies that the author had played the game for some time, had analyzed its strengths ans weaknesses, and is able to actually speak for himself. So, the length of the review is irrelevant, but it should give evidence that some time has been spent on the game and its analysis.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SumGato:

And like Ace_Blue said, it’s too vague. What is the criteria for denying votes?

That’s the whole point of G: criteria for denying votes depends on the individual circumstance of the vote itself. This way we can freely defend from every possible kind of invalid vote. It’s a safeguard for things we didn’t think of, basically, and it doesn’t restrict or limit new participants.

I vote G.

 
Flag Post

I vote G, this seems to be the only option which won’t restrict the voting audience (You could argue that option D wouldn’t either but I’m pretty sure that a lot of people don’t want to write a review to every single game in the contest in order for their vote to count).

Since there seems to quite often be disputes over the tallying up of the scores, I also think that when the voting period ends, someone should take screen-caps of the thread so that confusion can be avoided if people do change their vote afterwards

 
Flag Post

I’ll vote for G as well.

I was trying to decide between D and G both of which I really liked but I felt that G allows and encourages GiTD to grow to include a larger number of participants. When I picture option D with a contest of something like 20 participants I can’t imagine myself wanting to write a review for each one.

 
Flag Post

G for the same reason as Shake_N_Baker.

 
Flag Post

G, and I agree with Amibtious in that this whole voting change thing seems like an overreaction to an overreaction to someone’s (very understandable) overreaction. All of the other options are too restrictive and will only discourage participation—either by voters or participants, or both:

A) I can make 10 accounts, easily level them to 3, and 3 months down the road, I’m ready to cheat legally!
B) Same as A, except I don’t need to power-level any of the accounts.
C) Not very democratic. If there are 5 judges, and 3 of them hate a certain type of game, then even if the most thorough, polished, and fun entry is the type of game they hate, it won’t win. It also, from the outside, would discourage a new participant in fear of the contest being rigged in favor of regulars.
D) As others have mentioned, if a contest has 20 entries, not many people are going to want to take the time to sit and review all 20 games.
E) Define “known.” Anyone with a D? What if my 10 accounts in A & B each submit a 5 minute maze game?
F) In contests with smaller turnouts, you could have as few as 4 or 5 people voting. Besides, why would you want to exclude regular kong players from voting? After all, playing games is kind of what they do here.
G) Pretty much what we have now, this is the only option that seems to me like it leaves the door open for both regulars and newcomers to participate, and gives us a decent-sized pool of voters.

 
Flag Post

G

 
Flag Post

G because it is the least restrictive. See no reason why the rules have to change at all. I like the idea of requiring some type of feedback, even if it’s ’hey cool game i liked that the pigs had lazers", but beyond that anyone should be free to vote for whoever they want. Even if I recruit a bunch of friends to make kong accounts for the sole purpose of playing & voting, as long as they actually play the games they should be free to vote.

 
Flag Post

I vote D, because even clearly legitimate voters are often also clearly biased and did not play (or fairly evaluate) all the games.

D Adds social pressure to eliminate bias. You can only vote for a game that you really don’t think is the superior one if you’re OK with either: (1) Blatantly contradicting yourself, or (2) coming up with a public nonsense argument as to why the one you are voting for is the best.

One piece of good feedback is worth more than the bragging rights or the (relatively small — probably far below minimum wage, if you want to think of it that way ;P) kred prize.

tl;dr: D, Because it’s not only fair, but also better.

 
Flag Post

I’d say G, mostly because it sounds pretty much the same as it was before. The people running the contest were aware of the suspicious behavior in #33 and acted accordingly, and if anything we can just keep things even tighter and voice any concerns we might have. I think as long as people focus more on the fact that this contest is about helping you get creative and put something out there rather than winning some small prize, it will continue to work.

I do think this is an overreaction to one developer’s actions and although I don’t really care who wins, it’s definitely a matter of principle when it comes to somebody getting away with lying and cheating. It may be an overreaction, but laying out some more specific rules could be necessary to prevent future cheating as much as possible. If something must be done, I think G sounds great and maybe put some emphasis in the OP about reviewing games as the feedback is one of the best things about GiTD.

I think it would also be a good idea to have all of the final copies uploaded to a site where they cannot be updated.

 
Flag Post

Option A: A well-made option which plays very smoothly and easily. The levels seem rather arbitrary, and may cause some voters to unfairly lose on a technicality.

Option B: Unoriginal rip-off of Option A, with fewer features. The added simplicity is probably more appropriate for the genre though. This may struggle to win, as fans of Options A and B may have their votes split.

Option C: This isn’t much fun to play due to serious balance issues. Some parts of the option are too demanding while in other parts I don’t feel like I’m playing at all.

Option D: Easily the most fun and involving. It’s a challenging option, so it probably won’t appeal to casual voters so much. It’s certainly satisfying to complete, and more rewarding to all those involved.

Option E: I keep getting a blank screen. I tried opening it in Firefox, Chrome and Explorer, but I still can’t play it.

Option F: Same blank screen as Option E.

Option G: The instructions menu isn’t particularly clear, but the option plays quite well regardless. It retains the hard level of Option D while providing an easy level for less hardcore voters, so it’s going to have greater appeal. Having admin for a mulitplayer option is a good idea. Even if they don’t ever get involved it should encourage more responsible behaviour from the voterbase.

1st – Option D
2nd – Option G
I’d say G is fundamentally a better option than D. I’m putting D first because it’s more fun and rewarding.

 
Flag Post

D

A, B, C, E, and F all center around banning people from voting based on criteria that doesn’t necessarily make them a malicious voter. Just because someone’s new doesn’t mean that they’re an alt, and just because someone’s been around doesn’t mean that they’re honest. G at least has process to it, but I don’t think it’s exactly a rule that needs to exist! Questioning suspicious votes of unknown users should always be allowed. If I post a game to GiTD and then Siveran_1 through Siveran_7 all vote for me, I would hope someone would call it out.

D is beneficial to everyone. It makes the voters think about game design and calls attention to what developers did well or poorly. It also forces voters to consider all games rather than just voting after playing one elsewhere, which makes it a lot more fair and prevents it from becoming a popularity contest.

 
Flag Post

I’d probably go for D (with a slight change, along the lines of: feedback is required for only a certain number of games, not all (3, 5, 7…?) because coming up with feedback for a large number of games can be difficult, especially if other people have already reviewed and discussed the major points concerning each game).

G also seems suitable. It is (to me) seemingly quite similar to what we have at the moment, with votes only coming in to question if they are suspicious and have some bearing on the contest outcome. A (possible) structure of the system, would go something along the lines of: a participant in the current GiTD can call into question the votes of someone who is not a participant from a current/previous GiTD (or a mod/Kong staff member, they are exempt from scrutiny?). Upon such an occurance, the GiTD organiser and/or mods and/or a selected jury of experienced members and previous participants privately make a decision regarding the legitimacy of the votes. This decision is then taken into account for the final tallying of votes and noted at the end. Something like:

Game 1: xxxxx
Game 2: xx
Winner: Game 1
Discounted votes: DodgyGuy6423, SuspiciousFellow778
 
Flag Post

I vote for Option G as it is probably the least problematic among all the options and is the closest thing to what’s already being practiced in the GitD.

Option D sounds good, but I know that not all voters want to write feedback on the games.

Whichever option wins, I want to emphasize that the voting rules should be clearly spelled out so that newcomers can’t accuse anybody of making up the rules on the spot.

 
Flag Post

Voting will end at 6PM GMT 7/7/13

 
Flag Post

I think G is the best option but it should be paired with D if I had to pick one I’d leave it at G but I think that getting feedback on a game is the most important part.

 
Flag Post

1. D
2. G

Originally posted by Amibtious:
This is a massive overreaction IMO.

 
Flag Post

So many things was said that I agree with. I agree that:
this was an overreaction;
old rules are good enough;
whatever new rules will be, it should be written down and a link to these rules provided in every gitd.

Although old rules are good, I’m between D and G. So:

if(singleSentence >= feedback.length){
    myVote = D;
}else{
    myVote = G;
}

And D not to defend against cheaters, but more to make votes more honest and thought out.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Amibtious:
This is a massive overreaction IMO.

Well I think it’s a tiny underreaction!

 
Flag Post

Voting has concluded, stay tuned for more news, and a thread for the next GiTD contest.