Preferred Judging Styles

[Atomic Fiend]

I believe Edahn suggested the use of judges this time around, do you believe that this would be more effective then nonparticipating members as well as well as members who are participating int the gauntlet?

Lets hear it, what would you prefer and why?

 

[disregard]

Leave it the way it was.

1) I will resent the authority given to another member to judge my team's work (not really, but I could depending on who it is )
2) Winners are often obvious. And when it's not... it's so interesting to connect the dots as to why so-and-so won (for example, Team C only won because teams A and B didn't want each other to win!)
3) People LIKE to vote. Don't take that away from them.

 

[Tallulah]

I think the most fair way would be to have a panel of judges (and you could even submit the work anonymously), given a set of standards (what exactly are the criteria for each challenge), and then combine the judges' score with a popular vote score.

Last time, the criteria didn't matter a bit when it came to voting, because some people just came in and voted for what they gut-level liked, so it was very possible for a team that didn't adhere to the original criteria to win an individual challenge. That can create frustration and resentment when a team has tried very hard to work closely within the requirements and then those requirements don't end up mattering at all. (And I have now used up all my J for the week.)

Also, if it's just popular vote, it can get to the point where it's more about which team has the most friends than about whose work is better.

 

[Haight]

Ooo . . . I like that.

So a popular vote AND an electoral vote. Sounds familiar.

Another thought: With the significantly smaller team sizes, I don't think team votes will be an issue like they were the last time.

 

[Nocapszy]

ya i like both.
how many points will a judge's vote be compared against a citizen's vote?

 

[bluebell]

I think the most fair way would be to have a panel of judges (and you could even submit the work anonymously), given a set of standards (what exactly are the criteria for each challenge), and then combine the judges' score with a popular vote score.

Last time, the criteria didn't matter a bit when it came to voting, because some people just came in and voted for what they gut-level liked, so it was very possible for a team that didn't adhere to the original criteria to win an individual challenge. That can create frustration and resentment when a team has tried very hard to work closely within the requirements and then those requirements don't end up mattering at all. (And I have now used up all my J for the week.)

Also, if it's just popular vote, it can get to the point where it's more about which team has the most friends than about whose work is better.

Sounds good to me. Maybe 50-50 influence from judges and popular vote. I think we need the popular vote to be a significant proportion of the final score to a) keep the rest of the forum engaged if they want to be and b) it's more satisfying to do the challenges if you have a bigger audience.

 

[Kasper]

I'd get behind a 50/50 judges/members vote.

 

[nightning]

Ooo . . . I like that.

So a popular vote AND an electoral vote. Sounds familiar.

Another thought: With the significantly smaller team sizes, I don't think team votes will be an issue like they were the last time.

Me like idea. 50/50 sounds good.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Ooo . . . I like that.

So a popular vote AND an electoral vote. Sounds familiar.

I've heard that people really like the idea of superdelegates in a contest like this.

 

[527468]

We need judges for this question. The poll isn't "fair" enough.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I like the judge idea for the same reason Tallulah mentioned. Now that I'm a judge, we can make a better world