Well, many of the games I voted for in the first round didn’t make it through, so I had to vote for different games in the second. At that point it’s not about picking the best game you played, but the best from a limited selection. I guess you could abstain from voting in the second round if your favorites didn’t make it.
Because many people vote for games which don’t make it to the final round. (Or, sometimes, they’ll see the finalist list, play games on it they haven’t already played, and change their vote.)
Also, some people use the finalist list to catch up on their IF playing before making a final set of votes, so that may change their minds in round two if they find out about a game they’d missed earlier. (Often that includes me; for instance, I think it was the inclusion of ULTRA BUSINESS TYCOON III either on the finalist list or the For Your Consideration poll that caused me to play it at last. This may be the first time I’ve played every single game on the finalist list before it came out.)
Right now I’m leaning towards experimenting with a first round where each voter has up to three votes per category, which have to be split up between different nominees.
Weighted by preference?
No.
Which seems to make the case for not limiting the nominations.
Sam has said there will be experimentation, but if there’s only one vote for each category, why not just decide the winner from that list? It’s redundant. If my choice doesn’t get into the voting why would I even cast a second vote to reinforce a different game that’s already obviously stronger?
So your argument is pretty much that… if the game you wanted doesn’t make it to the second round, you don’t care which of the finalists wins? That does not match up with the preferences of most voters, in my experience.
The direct reason for a two-phase system is the understanding that, no matter how the first round is structured, the second round will have more voters. There will always be people who are willing to play a short list of (recommended) games and vote, but who are not willing to survey the entire field of eligible IF.
Say this year my pick for writing was BLOOD AND LAURELS. I’ve played the other two as well. This first round has basically already told me “your choice is invalid - pick one of these”. In that case I’d rather not as I already thought something was stronger. I’m going to abstain that category. Which makes having a repeat vote pointless - the people who did vote for one of those will likely vote the same way again. You’ll get pretty nearly the same vote count from the first round.
Putting only the two most popular choices subverts the likelihood I’ll discover an ULTRA BUSINESS TYCOON. As I said, XYZZY nominations and wins inform those who are not complete enthusiasts of what to play. What is the downside of a full ballot?
The finalist list is news, too, which helps. Unlike comps, the XYZZYs can’t grab attention when they launch with ‘here’s a giant bundle of exciting new games!’ The attractive thing we have to offer is the finalist list, really; that’s what gets people excited and talking.
Unpopular opinion formally withdrawn.
Plus, “nominated for two XYZZY Awards” is a nice accolade, even if you don’t end up winning.
Let’s say that in the category of Best Use of Kweepa, you have Game A, which gets twelve votes; Game B, which gets nine; and twenty-five other games which all get one vote apiece.
First of all, some of the people who voted for those twenty-five games will have an opinion on whether A or B is more deserving. (You might not care, but plenty of people are happy to support a second-best option if they don’t get their first choice.) Maybe not all of them will vote in the second round, but a lot of them will, and that can easily make the difference between A and B, even if there are no extra voters in the final round, which there always are.
Is it possible that the IFDB and intfiction.org polls conflicted with each other? In one, if a game gets one vote, then it is locked in. In the other, if a game gets one vote, it’s eliminated in a pile. Too many instructions, etc.
I like the idea of (semi)-preferential voting for the first round. I know I’ve walked away saying, game X is very nice, but I think game Y (almost as good) deserves some attention too. So I’m left with the dilemma of strategic voting in what should be a straight choice. I’m disappointed with the apparent lack of variety in certain categories when there were a lot of works I liked, too.
I think having (or possibly, but not probably,) requiring people to vote for more than one game may help people play more and ensure people aren’t just voting for a game to pump it up. I think that may have happened here, this year. But then all these suggestions look good in theory.
When you say “intfiction.org poll”, you mean the XYZZY nomination round? (Which maga just described here?)