Songwriting Competition - game mechanic changes: Voting Process (October 2022 Update)

[becsei_gyorgy]

And I am sorry to say this, but I will not further alter the current used points mechanic.

I think there is a difference in approach between us on this issue.

I think the new scoring system unduly penalises those who drop out of the top 5 once and unduly rewards average songs.

My real life example is SWC056.

► Show Spoiler

Above is the original (old) scoring table.
Second is the new 10-9-8-7-6-0 system.

1. you can see that patrlord originally won the competition (2 gold medals, 2 silver, 1 bronze, 1*5th and 1*6th place + perfect bonus points).

However, in the new system he would be only second and Arelem would win (Arelem: 1 gold medal, 2 silver, 2 bronze, 1*4th and 1*5th place + imperfect bonus!!)
Why? Because 1 competitor (AFuture) didn't put patrlord in the top5 once, but only ranked him 6th!
Because of the difference of only one 5-6th place, even though patrlord won more first places, even though he made a perfect bonus and won the same number of second places, he still came second.

This is why I wrote that the new system doesn't reward winners enough and punish if you are not in the top5 only once (makes huge difference between a 5th and a 6th place).

...and rewards mediocre ones (like me in the battle for 3rd place) :

2. According to the original scoring, we were tied with Olli H, but Olli H finished third at the end of the race because of 3 (!) first places. But according to the new scoring I would have been third with a big lead with 2 silver, 1 bronze and 2*4th places.
I beat with my 3 medals his top three finishes because someone didn't put him in the top 5 once but sy put me in fourth place.
I ask again, is it fair?
I still don't see that we should be so punished once someone is out of the top 5.

This is what I was referring to when I wrote that I think there should be more reward for winners and less punishment for those who drop out of the top 5.
Of course this is a matter of perspective, which can be debated, but for my part I feel this approach is fairer.

Of course, the more participants there are in a given race, the more points that are awarded, the more the disparities are smoothed out. But with such a small number of competitors, these imbalances can be greater in some cases.

The third table shows my proposed 7-5-3-2-1 system, which I think gives more reward for better placings and does not penalize as much as the current system.
And you can see that I would be very badly off with my average song .

Again, it's a matter of opinion: should there be any weight in the scoring if someone puts you on the first places (or podium). I think yes, there should be weight in who finds which song the best, and there shouldn't be too big a penalty if someone is out of the top 5 for some reason.
The new system I think is less rewarding (it matters less who you put in the first places) and more punitive (it has a much bigger impact on who you leave out).

[Mister Fox]

Okay, I'll keep this short, because this is starting to lead to nowhere.



The "old system" was highly criticized for months on end, because of the topic of "being forced to penalize entries by giving a ranking for every entry, and feeling awkward to give somebody a low place". Because, this was mandatory.

I finally addressed this recurring criticism.

I also simplified the mechanics. Most notably voting for the top xyz only (tiered, depending on the participation amount we're at, again... see post #001), which also makes things significantly easier for myself (please do not underestimate that). Plus a reduction of the mandatory written feedback.



The "new system" does not penalize anybody, neither does it "reward the winners any less".

We always had cut-off points of either no winner (equal or less than 4 entries), 1 sole winner (less than 9 entries) or 3 winners (equal or more than 9), with the rare option to have 5 winners (special events). I still consider opening up the podium to a 5-position one, if we have more than 15 entries on a regular basis.

And once we have more entries (more than 35 over the course of several months), then we can re-evaluate if necessary. Up until this point, I do not agree on the comment of "possible unfair handling", or a need to "spread out the field more to make the votes more worthwhile" (see my previous made points above).



Even if you didn't make it on the podium, you still won regardless.

You joined the game to begin with, presented yourself to hundreds of listeners. And on top of that, you also got feedback. Something that other games do not offer. Everything else, is bonus - and has always been exactly that.



The very same score mechanic is being used by several other audio communities (in fact, some even go with 5-4-3-2-1 -- which was also proposed towards me several times during previous discussions). It worked for us since 2017, the "simplified" variant will continue to work for us in the future. Even if you don't believe so currently -- this is a better, while still being fair solution.



There is currently no need for further adjustments. Please accept this decision.

Thank you