In the comments for this week's voting thread, certain issues came to light. It is my general policy NOT to implement rule changes until the week following, to permit those interested to discuss the pros and cons. To that end, please vote as you usually would. The thread is not closed until this issue is resolved.
Let's address these two issues in the comments section here, and leave the voting thread for votes instead.
1: Multiple votes for the same thread.
The reason I established the rules they way they were was for the explicit purpose of promoting variety in updated threads. It seems to me that permitting each participant the opportunity to cast multiple votes on the same thread in the same week is likely to work around that.
If people would prefer to vote for the same thread multiple times, then I would have to insist upon a further rule alteration: Namely, that I do not merely work on the winner and work on second and third position as well. I feel that this approach might help ensure that there is some semblance of variety in the voting, but only if the new rules are adopted.
At the moment I am not convinced this will be necessary. I do not think permitting a participant to use all five votes for the same thread is productive to this blog. If you have any strong feelings one way or the other, please let me know in the comments here.
2: Changes to updated thread votes.
I suggested an alteration to the way threads updated by others acquire points, based on Sirroco asking about it. In detail:
All updates receive one vote, unless it is a string of fatesplits, in which case it is but a single vote for all put together. Tiebreaker points are handed out as follows:
0: Fatesplit. Episode contains nothing but options
1: Poorly written, or contains less than a hundred words.
2: Within a thousand words, good writing quality.
3: Between a thousand and two thousand words, good writing quality.
4: Over two thousand words, good writing quality.
Does anyone have any feelings on this issue? Better rules for establishing the distribution of tiebreaker points? Please suggest them here.
You know what I think of the multiple votes question. As for the changes to the tiebreaker points, those seem pretty reasonable to me.
ReplyDeleteNo to the multiple voting, after all why mess with something that ain't broken?
ReplyDeleteLikewise the tiebreakers seem fine to me, it might deter some people from writing crap episodes/fatesplits, thinking that someone will update for them
Seeing as we now have 5 votes, perhaps we could use 2 on one thread, and the other three have to be used seperately? That could help accelerate a few threads while still promoting diversity.
ReplyDeleteProbably not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThough, admittingly it is starting to look like it'd be nice to prune ignored ones after a while (Maybe lose a vote every 2 voting periods without a vote?)
Mainly as there's like a dozen and a half with 3+ votes...and then like two dozen with 2 or less. Starting to make the table a bit bulky. I suppose it encourages not forgetting stories but the table is like twice the size it was in august. If with 5 votes a week, nobody is pushing something forward for a couple of weeks, maybe it should fall off. *shrugs* Maybe spared if it won once.
But why should anything be removed from the list? I fail to grasp that one. Adding more threads to the list encourages people to check out more of those threads. That's why there's a link on each one. Where's the downside? Considering I've specifically been working since this blog was started to bring attention to as many of Lumitiel's threads as possible with my votes, I'm less than exactly thrilled by the prospect of wiping out that effort.
ReplyDeleteI agree with not removing anything from the list. I've gone through a few times and clicked on a bunch of episodes that I couldn't remember and enjoyed a read-through.
ReplyDeleteAs for the new tiebreaker points, those seem fine to me. I rarely hit 2,000 words. However, I know other authors like Cross C do regularly, so they ought to be rewarded for that.