G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)
That's the question posed by the comp. I can see three things that are
wrong with this.
a) It reinforces an already thriving atmosphere of bickering and petty
vindictiveness. ("Man, do I wish I hadn't entered this year just so
that I would have had the pleasure of voting this a 1." Emily Short on
a 2001 comp entry)
b) It rewards the games that are the least offensive, where "least
offensive" is a euphemism for "most inane". In practice this means
that Luminous Horizon (9 ten-votes) wins over Blue Chairs (16
ten-votes) and that Splashdown (2 ten-votes) wins over The Great Xavio
(10 ten-votes). There were 5 games that got more than 9 ten-votes,
which makes me wonder if the winner was in fact a good reflection of
the voters' intentions.
c) It encourages reviewers to review every single entry, even the ones
they obviously don't like, which often serves as an excuse for
pursuing a personal vendetta. ("Content apparently written by A. P.
Hill's younger brother." Emily Short on a 2000 comp entry that appears
to have had nothing to do with A.P. Hill, nor his "younger brother")
I propose that instead of having as many votes as there are entries,
voters should have only three votes: Best (3 points), Second Best (2
points) and Third Best (1 point).
That's the question posed by the comp. I can see three things that are
wrong with this.
a) It reinforces an already thriving atmosphere of bickering and petty
vindictiveness. ("Man, do I wish I hadn't entered this year just so
that I would have had the pleasure of voting this a 1." Emily Short on
a 2001 comp entry)
b) It rewards the games that are the least offensive, where "least
offensive" is a euphemism for "most inane". In practice this means
that Luminous Horizon (9 ten-votes) wins over Blue Chairs (16
ten-votes) and that Splashdown (2 ten-votes) wins over The Great Xavio
(10 ten-votes). There were 5 games that got more than 9 ten-votes,
which makes me wonder if the winner was in fact a good reflection of
the voters' intentions.
c) It encourages reviewers to review every single entry, even the ones
they obviously don't like, which often serves as an excuse for
pursuing a personal vendetta. ("Content apparently written by A. P.
Hill's younger brother." Emily Short on a 2000 comp entry that appears
to have had nothing to do with A.P. Hill, nor his "younger brother")
I propose that instead of having as many votes as there are entries,
voters should have only three votes: Best (3 points), Second Best (2
points) and Third Best (1 point).