Monday, 13 March 2017
Discussion: Alteration to Rules
So I've been thinking of making some alterations to how threads are picked in an attempt to be more fair. I think that people tend to forget about the 50 vote cutoff and it might be complicating things a little too much.
Now, the reason I instituted that rule was fairly simple. I could see the vote totals getting really, really high and wanted to put a cap on it so that they wouldn't get up to say a hundred or so.
So I'd like to bounce some ideas around for a better selection system. Preferably something simple and fair. One option I've been playing with works as follows.
Rather than resetting both stats when the vote total wins, just reset that point total and let the "tiebreaker" points remain. Secondly, add a new column which represents the total of both of the others, and have a third thread win every week. Whichever has the highest here gets an update.
For this new winner both of its values would be divided by two (rounded up) rather than reset to 0.
The selection process would also be represented in the top line of the table: First, whichever has the top vote wins, with a tie going to whichever has the top tiebreaker. That one's vote total is reset to 0, and then the second thread is picked by basically reversing the roles of both stats. Highest tiebreaker point wins, for a tie highest vote total. Reset that thread's tiebreaker points to 0. Finally, pick for the total of the other two.
Obviously I'd just flip a coin or roll a dice if that's not sufficient to pick three threads. What I'm concerned with is if, like last week with Akane's Curse, a thread has basically the top in both. I think in that case I should skip it for the second one this week as it's getting an update already.
What do you guys think? Does that work? Would you prefer another system entirely?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If a thread gets to the top in both points for the week it should really just get a double update, unless you really can't think of anything.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise the system sounds good.
I'm not sure about adding the third one, since your workload already seems to be nearing the threshold of what you can reliably put out, but letting a story ding off tiebreakers is good, i think.
ReplyDeleteI agree, only do the third update per week if you really think you can do that. I am sure no one here wants you to overwork or stress yourself^^
ReplyDeleteWhat could work, maybe have the points above 50 be given to the option which has the least points currently? Or just put it somewhere you want to write something sooner or later?
Your ideas seem pretty good all in all and I would suggest maybe just testing them out and seeing how they work for a while. You can always change it again later.
Honestly, I barely think about the 50 votes rule when I vote so I am not sure if I was one of the ones who added to this.
Well, I'm compelled to answer your questions with questions of my own. What exactly are your perogatives with this voting system, anyway? What results are you trying to encourage in yourself and in the voting public? What is the intention here? There is an art to designing these sort of systems, and it seems entirely possible that the voting system you've currently constructed, and even the one you're proposing presently, aren't really optimized to do what you want them to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be perfectly honest, I suspect this may well be the case. Looking over both the existing and proposed rules again, I'm honestly not sure exactly what you're trying to encourage. Obviously more popular threads win more often, and the ranked-voting in the tiebreaker points is meant to give weighting to cult-favorite stories to counterbalance broad popularity. Although I'm not sure what purpose erasing tiebreaker votes from primary winners serves, aside from a soft banding of tiebreaker points (in contrast to the hard banding of the 50-point cap/win you instituted).
Maybe simply subtract 50 from the vote totals instead of resetting to 0 so any "Extra" votes aren't wasted.
ReplyDeletePlus I feel that resetting tiebreaker votes is kind of.. unsatisfactory? I think. Since they're not really used to break ties they're instead basically priority votes, for the stories people really want an update for. So don't reset tiebreaker votes until they win. (Resetting tiebreaker votes is fairer, I think, since a thread can get up to 5 at a time)