Leaderboard Change - Voting Plan

[Weehawk]

Taking the proposals previously enumerated and adding boxster's idea about an average-score qualification cutoff (which Zwaxy liked), I think I could probably set up a single vote to decide the matter, but it would require the proposals be grouped into subsets which would be considered significant in the results, not just the individual propositions tallies. For the same reason several members have suggested that the vote be broken down into sequential sub-questions. The disadvantage to this is that it will take several votes (and therefore several weeks to finish the process).

As I say, I thnk I could do it with one vote, but am coming to the conclusion that it might create confusion with the members, and that it would be more straightforward to proceed with the individual question process.

I tentatively plan to lay out the decision process like this:

First Question
Do we prefer a system based on
a) the percentage of a score to the top score or
b) place only?

If b) prevails then deciding how points per place becomes fairly simple

else if a) prevails, the next question becomes

Second Question
Do we prefer to cut off awarding leaderboard point after a certain number of places (like 3 or 5) or not?

If so then we are simply deciding the number of places after that pretty much

else if not then we are pretty much stuck with the original system but still have the option to implement a qualification for leaderboard inclusion based on average score per submission.

I think the whole process can probably be done with three votes.

If this is clear enough and we are agreeable then I will begin the first poll on Monday.

[Chad]

the first question along with place/percentage should also have an option NOT to change anything, i.e. if there's no majority then it should pointless to go on with future polls until the majority need for change in this area is positive. consequently if the place/percentage gets a 66% majority then future polls should decide more specifically.

[LN2]

The above sounds like it's along the right lines, but needs to distinguish this is about changes specifically for the leaderboard points and sorting.

ie. if it ends up being done by place points, the current leaderboard points and average/submission could still be shown.

....much like the place pts are shown now.

I think there could be a cutoff for assigning zero points if the points for a submission would be below a certain number...like 10.

However, I don't agree with dropping people off of the leaderboard because their average is less than a certain number.

Which of these does your second question address?

I think that would help.

Also, as important of a potential change as this is...so what if it takes weeks to vote on and resolve? It's an important issue to many.

It should have more and longer terms for voting versus regular polls to make a special rule for a game.

A leaderboard change affects all.

[Weehawk]

the first question along with place/percentage should also have an option NOT to change anything, i.e. if there's no majority then it should pointless to go on with future polls until the majority need for change in this area is positive. consequently if the place/percentage gets a 66% majority then future polls should decide more specifically.

A vote for b) as I've outlined would be for not making a change on Question 1.

As for the possibility of wasting time, unless the members not wanting any change have been shamefully silent so far, I don't think it's much of a concern.

No change will be a possible outcome though.

Also, I see no rules mentioning the nature of the leaderboard. Since this is therefore not "going against a standing rule" as stated in item #3 of the General Voting Procedures, the 2/3 requirement does not apply.

[Buttermaker]

Some members have suggested that only confirmed scores should count toward leaderboard points.

And let's not forget to vote on this one too.

If it goes through we can put up a sticky thread where people can request confirmations for inps which haven't been confirmed after a certain amount of time.

[LN2]

Also, I see no rules mentioning the nature of the leaderboard. Since this is therefore not "going against a standing rule" as stated in item #3 of the General Voting Procedures, the 2/3 requirement does not apply.

IMHo that means little. Votes for special rules for games just to UPHOLD the general rules have required the 2/3rds approval to pass.

...when it should have required 2/3rds to go against the general rules...not follow them.

...case in point are some leeching or tricks not allowed. MARP general rules cover this in most cases....yet it seems ignored to the point polls to ban leeching happen.

From the general rules by default that leeching is already banned...so you really would need 2/3rds approving to allow that leech or trick.

It's often bass ackwards.

[Novice]

First Question
Do we prefer a system based on
a) the percentage of a score to the top score or
b) place only?

c) total amounts of downloader.
one verygood play is worth more than 100billion worthless junks.

--from No.1 junk maker of all Team2ch's.


replays which zfz,mai-n,noo,violet,bandid produced are worth more than total value of several top 10 players.

[Buttermaker]

First Question
Do we prefer a system based on
a) the percentage of a score to the top score or
b) place only?

c) total amounts of downloader.
one verygood play is worth more than 100billion worthless junks.

--from No.1 junk maker of all Team2ch's.


replays which zfz,mai-n,noo,violet,bandid produced are worth more than total value of several top 10 players.

I asked Zwaxy a while ago if he could implement a download counter for the replays. He's forgotten it by now I think. Would be interesting to see.

[Weehawk]

c) total amounts of downloader.

Probably impractical, and would be susceptible to manipulation. But an interesting notion. This is after all, a replay site.

replays which zfz,mai-n,noo,violet,bandid produced are worth more than total value of several top 10 players.

That depends on what one is interested in.

Just offhand, I don't think any of these players ever submitted a recording for a game that I had any interest in whatsoever.

[DaviL]

>replays which zfz,mai-n,noo,violet,bandid produced are worth more than total value of
several top 10 players.


That depends on what one is interested in.

Just offhand, I don't think any of these players ever submitted a recording for a game that I had
any interest in whatsoever.



Agree.
However I love masa pac-land inp very much.