View Single Post
Old July 19th, 2013 (1:15 PM). Edited July 19th, 2013 by molivious.
molivious's Avatar
molivious molivious is offline
so much fail...
    Join Date: Nov 2009
    Location: Aludna Village
    Age: 25
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Modest
    Posts: 417
    Originally Posted by Manipulation View Post
    I think the Hack of the Year committee should solely exist of previous winners.
    you mean consist? but anyway, that's not why I'm here.

    Disregarding the fact that I'm a nobody and merely just a passersby in the hacking scene, I should still be allowed to give my two cents, right? (I'll be borrowing the word "committee" from you Manipulation, thanks)
    1. Making ballots secret
    2. Preventing team members (not just the owner) from voting for a hack
    3. Having a weighted score distribution of some kind
    4. Making it so only hacks that have a public beta can be voted for
    5. Allowing Sideshow Showcase hacks to be eligible in certain categories (e.g Graphics and Gameplay)
    Agree. In fact, these should be "pinned down". They'll do more good than harm. As for #4... as long as you're involving #1 (qualification criteria part) in the quote BELOW, then sure. With all due respect to the ones who made them, I personally don't think all hacks with public betas are automatically eligible. For #5, I'm going with Projectwolfie's opinion.
    1. Adding a nomination round where people nominate hacks which are then check up against qualification criteria before moving to a public voting round
    2. Having a dozen or so pre-selected hacks up for category nomination in the first round rather than every hack on the forum being eligible
    1) Good idea. Additionally, a poll could be handy in this case just so you could apply to what's mentioned in #2 (quoted above).
    2) Yup. this is probably the best way to "downsize" such a huge selection. A good combo with #1.

    The nomination phase should be done this way, in this order, imo.

    1. Enforcing a post number/ membership length requirement to newer voters
    2. Preventing voters from voting for the same hack more than a certain number of times on a single ballot (over multiple categories)
    3. Removing the public vote entirely and leaving it up to just a handful of veterans
    Hmm... there may be other ways you could manage an "intelligent" election without having to undergo these (pardon the language, can't think of another word) strict boundaries.

    But as for #1, 1 month requirement (prior to the election), at least 30 posts, and no more than 3-5(?) infraction points (or w/e it was called), should be fair enough to keep away from those "spambots". If you could track their recent activity, that would help too, instead of checking how much posts they've had (since they could've made all those alt accounts years ago). Now...

    IMO, there should be at least two phases for the whole election process.

    - Phase 1 -
    Nomination. Pretty much what I've commented on the 2nd quote. People nominate, the committee decides whether it's a valid nominee.

    Nomination (members) -> Elimination (committee).

    - Phase 2 -
    Election. Now this is where things get colorful and messy. There will be votes here and there, coming from reliable and unreliable sources alike. How do we sort out those "n00b votes" and "acceptable votes"?

    Let the voter give brief reviews/comments for their chosen hacks to explain why they gave their votes (and scores) to that hack under that criteria. "Why?", you may ask. To ensure that they've actually played or seen that game. This also gives everyone a chance to vote at the same time, not just veterans. Truth is, even the so-called "veterans" may have biases, not just the "n00bs". Let's not deny that fact. No offense to anyone, don't misunderstand, we all just want everyone to get their fair shot, don't we?

    While I also must admit that even this system is not 100% foolproof, it still allows us to dispatch a good number of those votes that are usually just submitted to mess and rig with the system.

    Just to point it out, this process will be no different than phase 1:
    Vote (members) -> Elimination (committee)

    But anyway, as for scoring. Members should be allowed to "score" for as much hacks as they want, provided that their vote is considered/accepted as "valid". Scoring will be done in a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest. And at the end of Phase 2, comes the tallying of votes. Since it's a scoring system, there should be a formula, such as:
                                        Total score
                                     Total # of voters
    So now, for example, 4 different people voted for X hack (mapping) with the following scores: 8 / 7 / 7 / 6
    Therefore, X hack receives an average of 7 (mapping)

    I know it's probably not the best idea, though, because its a much, much, more tedious thing to do (for the committee/tallymen/syndicates) than the standard voting process. Feel free to critique/argue/agree/comment/flavor it up. This is a discussion thread, no?
    You could easily teach yourself if you observe the world closely." - Elise

    Squish, squish, squish. Goes the bug under your foot.
    Squish, squish, squish. I'm telling you not to look.