Polls for possible changes to the contests

[Simon]

For results among subsets of entries (all levels from a given design-rule), seriously consider ditching polls, in favor of (a) have each voter submit an ordered lists of all entries, or (b) have each voter distribute 20 points across all entries, with at most 10 points per entry and voter.

It will be radically different, but it will speed up the process enormously, and you can look at any subset you like.

You can still hold a French presidential election between 2-3 winners of the list/score round.

-- Simon

[namida]

The new plan sounds very good to me. There's only one thing I don't like about it -- I would rather keep the first round being grouped by rule so that we establish the winner of each rule as well as the overall winner of the contest -- especially for rules like "Make a Tame level" where all entries have no chance of winning overall. But if people want to get rid of rule-grouping, I'm okay with that, and it's still a big improvement on the current system.

I agree with this. Some rules are likely to lead to more successful (I wouldn't necesserially say "better") levels than others, so I think it's worth running them separately.

I think this is the main point to discuss still.

If some rules lead to better levels, then those from "worse" rules will drop out anyway during the contest. They will get into the mixed group sooner or later. I still think the equal group size with equal surviving rates is a higher goal to achive than delaying the inevitable mixing.

Yes - but at least the group-specific rounds act as kind of a "mini-contest" to play the levels from those rules against each other, which is a more equal playing field.

Perhaps a hybrid approach works here, to try and allow for this to some extent while not holding the contest up too much - if rule A has roughly the same number of levels as rules B and C combined, combine B and C into a single round of voting while keeping A separate. If all three are roughly equal, either do them in a single combined round or a round each, depending on which fits better with the total number of submissions.

[IchoTolot]

Given the vote ended 6 to 3, I think I keep the rule spilt up for now.

While trying to make the survival rates roughly equal, while them being lower as before so we will always end up with ~6 levels in the mixed stage.

The other speed up processes I will implement.


Something truly radical, like the list method Simon proposed, I may try out in a spin-off contest.

I had some ideas for different voting styles and a ranking list was one of them. Another one was a "monarchy"/"wise senat" way in which 1 or ~3 people simply decide the entire ranking. Which could be an interesting twist, trying to appeal exactly that one person or the small group.

But as I said that would be a spin-off contest first where it's ok to goof around and experiment completely.

[namida]

I can't say I'd be too keen on the single judge method; but the list method might be worth at least trying.

Trying to design around general community trends is one thing; but I think trying to design to a specific person's standards - even if that person is different each contest - might harm the quality of levels that get made. It can also be somewhat hard to predict in some cases, given that the kinds of levels a person enjoys making might not be the same as the kind they enjoy playing.