Proposed Chronicle of the Month Rules Revision
The rule that is up for modification is stated as follows:
Quoted from the official rules:
In the event that votes are tied after one week of voting, one additional member is allowed to vote. This voter must vote for one of the chronicles that is tied. After this vote is cast, the winner is decided.
Effectively, this is sudden death. I propose more of a "sudden runoff," in which those who have voted for chronicles which were eliminated in the first week of voting can alter their votes. New voters would also be allowed to cast a vote. The first vote to change the balance would decide the winner. This modification is largely to emphasize that non-winning authors are encouraged to vote for other chronicles. Please post your comments.
Troyen last edited by
If the first vote to change the balance still decides the winner, then its the same thing: sudden death, only with more players eligable.
Perhaps allow a brief period of time, say two days or so. That way the winner isn't declared overnight by the first person to read the topic and change their vote. (especially in low ties like 1-1-1)
"There is a time and a place for everything."
(This message has been edited by Avatara (edited 11-12-2002).)
Bryce_bot last edited by
We have enough problems with voter turnout as it is, this would only make it harder. On the other hand, I suspose it would technicaly be more fair.
In general, what exactly makes a game good isn't that easily
quantified - perhaps the absense of things that make it bad? - Words of Wisdom from Glenn Andreas
Where do you want to (url="http://"http://www.macclassics.com/cythera/tricks/rJade.htm")teleport(/url) today?
On the contrary, Bryce, this rule would make it easier to get deciding votes after a week has passed. This would also encourage authors to vote during sudden-death time. Before a week has passed, this rule would have no effect at all.
If there are no further comments, this modification will take effect in this month's contest.