Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-out.uswest.net!uunet!chi.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: maximum # of games (was masochists)
Message-ID: <G4uo15.2Mu@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:15:04 GMT
References: <G45vtz.791@world.std.com> <903ejo$1j7$1@news.lth.se> <0VkV5.3192$i%4.122976@news20.bellglobal.com> <9061us$b79$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 27
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:59317

Kathleen M. Fischer  <green_gargoyle@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Personally, I think that authors should be able to vote, but that their
>1-10's should be kept separate. Author votes would not be used to
>compute the winner of the comp, but would be displayed in the same
>lovely tabular fashion of regular votes, still used for Miss
>Congeniality, and then perhaps a combined tally could be displayed as
>well to allow pundits even more flame fodder for agreeing/disagreeing
>with the final result.

Why does the Miss Congeniality system work the way it
does anyway?  It suffers from all the dangers of the
"old" pre 1-10 system: it favors games which more people
can play, e.g. more portable games and games whose authors
people expect in advance to deliver quality product. I guess
when the numbers of authors are small, it's hard to come up
with any ranking system that is valid at all, but what
with 50 authors this year (though I dunno how many voted)...

I guess you can argue that Miss Congeniality votes don't
really matter for anything, so who cares, but then that's
just as easily an argument for not bothering to determine
a Miss Congeniality winner in the first place. It seems to
me if you're going to bother determining one, you might
as well do it right, and I'm not clear that the current
system does so.

SeanB
