Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!



  • @axel Unfortunately if they don't get back to you, I don't know of we'd be able to count their entire list at that point. The other option I can think of is to exclude the games not qualified and bump everything up or down accordingly, but that may give things extra votes they didn't specifically earn.



  • @axel Personally, since you made the attempt (and followups are entirely up to you), once you set the deadline for final calls of votes, if they STILL haven't responded to you, not only would I recommend giving a final heads up their votes can't count, but also put a general disclaimer in your initial starting post as a public notice: If people didn't take the time to fully read or respond, they can't be counted.



  • @happygaming Yeah that's the thing, I could bump everything up but then which of their HMs do I bump up, since those are not supposed to be in any order... I could just randomly pick the first one they listed but it's a bit arbitrary at this point.



  • @axel I think bumping up is wrong. I can put my favorite game at #2 because I realize that it isn't the best game of the decade, so promoting it to #1 will be against my will.

    I say you should invalidate either entire vote or just positions with non-eligible games.



  • @axel I would say keep their list as is, while omitting any ineligible games they voted for.



  • Seems like a pretty simple fix if they don't respond. Say #3, #11, #20 are ineligible, then they are stricken from the vote, and other games do not move up to replace their spots. #4 stays #4, #12 stays #12, #HM stays #HM. Currently working on finalizing my order btw, will send it in soon.



  • I was just told that Persona 4 isn't eligible for the voting. I'm disappointed in this forum.



  • @axel said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    I have an issue though, a few people registered on the forums to vote, and a couple of them voted for games that are not eligible, so I replied and told them, but they never checked the forums since. So I don't know how to handle their votes now.

    If they aren't invested enough in the process to either understand the rules or check back to see how things are going, I would invalidate the lot. Only counting a subset of games would reduce the validity of the final ranking.

    Continue to remind them publicly and privately until voting is closed, and if they haven't made the corrections by then, bin 'em.



  • @iboshow Welcome to the party.

    @tokyoslim said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    I just want to say that I STILL disagree with not allowing Persona 4 Golden in 2012. My Persona 5 vote moved up about 4 slots because of Royal because I know we won't allow it in our GOTY this year for the same BS reasons.
    *Edit: not trying to sound like I'm criticising the decision making process, or people involved. I just don't like the outcome



  • @iboshow I mean, it came out in 2008.



  • @miserableperson That doesn't work though because it favours the votes that were valid.

    If you've watched EZA do Hall of Greats, they discovered this very early on. At one point Brad couldn't make it but still wanted to put forward a game. However, as he wasn't there to vote, that meant that the voting was skewed in his game's favour. It could receieve more votes than any other game.

    This is much the same thing. It skews the voting in a way that favours the games that received valid votes. You simply have to award all the points, otherwise it invalidates the whole thing.

    On a side note. Theoretically, if you had one game that you wanted to get as high as possible and didn't care about anything else, you would simple give that game your one spot and then vote for #24, #25, etc for each year with the rest of your votes. You can sort of game the system then as you're decreasing the likelihood of your votes swinging a marginal with your #1 vote.



  • You know, I don't see why we force people to use all their voting slots in the first place to the point of making it an unbreakable rule (and not, say, just a strongly encouraged behavior). There are political voting systems that allow this, and it isn't considered a defect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_preferential_voting

    I was actually confused about this subject during a recent GOTY thread where my voting list was dropped. I'm not sure of any other way to explain this, but I didn't even consider for a second that it was a strict requirement even after I received a message about my list. (In my case, my votes were all valid but -- in my mind -- I desired to leave my last few points unused instead of picking a random game based on its reputation). And I'm probably paying closer and more regular attention to the forums compared to how we might imagine someone who just joined the forums and hasn't shown much activity yet.

    The setup for this thread (having a limited pool of games) actually makes this point more relevant, because people might not have played these particular games. This time I was actually quite eager to draft a list that was filled with votes based on reputation/perception and not personal experience, but if I was a voter who didn't feel that way I wouldn't have been able to submit a full list. Think about that.

    To sum up, I'm not so concerned about changing the rules. The way we do it is fine too. But I want to emphasize that the broader sentiment "Well, if they aren't invested enough in the process to understand the rules..." is just plain wrong. It's very easy to make an honest misunderstanding and/or not have enough games to vote for.

    Edit: Also, to a certain extent the rule doesn't necessarily achieve the benefit that probably comes to mind first (putting care/effort into your list). Suppose person A voted for 20 games but got lazy after a few minutes and stops putting in any effort into selection and ordering, while person B votes for 18 games after putting in a large degree of time and contemplation, but gets lazy in trying to decide how to handle the last two spots. The rule removes person B and keeps person A.



  • I agree. Since "list should be full" rule wasn't declared from the start, we shouldn't add it now.

    We can discards votes with invalid games because they don't follow eligibility rule. But we can't discard them just because they have empty slots.



  • @ffff0 said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    I agree. Since "list should be full" rule wasn't declared from the start, we shouldn't add it now.

    ?

    Top 15 minimum was a very clear rule at the start.

    @chocobop said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    Edit: Also, to a certain extent the rule doesn't necessarily achieve the benefit that probably comes to mind first (putting care/effort into your list). Suppose person A voted for 20 games but got lazy after a few minutes and stops putting in any effort into selection and ordering, while person B votes for 18 games after putting in a large degree of time and contemplation, but gets lazy in trying to decide how to handle the last two spots. The rule removes person B and keeps person A.

    This is an unlikely situation. If somone puts a lot of effort into most of their list, they'll probably submit a full and compliant list.



  • For 2000 goty I've submitted one game because I played just one 2000 game. My list was accepted.



  • When I first sent my list, I had one ineligible game even after I went through the list of games multiple times. I sent a replacement after I was notified but I would have been disappointed if my whole list didn't count because of one game.

    Maybe as long as they have at least 15 eligible games on their list, the list counts. Remember that the Honorable Mentions are optional so it wouldn't be considered gaming the system to only have a total of 15 to 20 games on your list.

    I would also trust Axel to decide on a case by case basis which lists are disqualified. If he feels that based on the list submitted, that a person made an honest mistake or if that person was acting like a joker to mess with the results.



  • @oscillator said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    This is an unlikely situation. If somone puts a lot of effort into most of their list, they'll probably submit a full and compliant list.

    But what if I play unpopular games (say, visual novels) that didn't get into top 25 and therefore not eligible. I will not be able to come up with a full list, but this doesn't make my perspective on the best games of decade less valuable. I've picked games I've picked for a reason and ignored the rest for a reason.

    Think about Don. He doesn't play every big game of the year, but this doesn't make his personal GotY less valid. So I say that incomplete list should be allowed.



  • @ffff0 said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    For 2000 goty I've submitted one game because I played just one 2000 game. My list was accepted.

    That was one of the earlier GOTY threads, so I'm not surprised the rules were looser.

    @ffff0 said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    But what if I play unpopular games (say, visual novels) that didn't get into top 25 and therefore not eligible. I will not be able to come up with a full list, but this doesn't make my perspective on the best games of decade less valuable. I've picked games I've picked for a reason and ignored the rest for a reason.

    Spoiler, a little more than half of the list I submitted I haven't played. I made up the gap with games that I'm likely to enjoy based on similarity and what I've seen of them, plus a few games I'm more distant to but can see merit in.

    The rule is a complete list of eligible games, but there's no rule on how you get there.



  • @hazz3r I don't think that's actually the case though, for our purpose every game had the same chance of making any list. The issue in HoG was literally that Brad's game could receive more votes than anyone else's due to his absence. If someone submits a list and 5 of the 25 games aren't on the list, they weren't prevented from choosing 5 different games that would have counted - they actively chose not to. Voting isn't fundamentally skewed in any way, no one is prevented from anything, the maximum points possible don't change. I don't think its perfect as people should just read the list, but I think its acceptable.



  • @axel Maybe an "Ineligible But Not Forgotten" category?

    And Hollow Knight could be the first, last, and the whole damn category?

    Joking about the last part.