Also The Chain for Formula One races was an inspired choice
Exactly, Iām at least 20% serious when I claim that BBC sport theme tunes is the best musical genre that exists. Ski Sunday, Golf, Cricket, Snooker, Formula 1, Grandstand - all amazing.
(Meant as a reply to @Jalfrezi)
Yes.
Additionally it helps me do the reveals in a timely fashion if I get the submissions early. Right now I am looking at 14 songs per category * letās say an average of 5 minutes per song * multiple listens.
If so, what is the deadline?
See OP
We could do ranking of top x and bottom y as we do right now but award the songs in the middle all the same average score, eg. 6-10 all get 8 points.
Well I was sort of doing that by awarding the average score of 0 to the middle. Biggest reason was to eliminate unnecessary work in both sorting and tabulating scores. Iād probably eliminate the time penalty due to that. The other was to asymmetrically award the winners more than a linear system does. If thereās a middle tier that deserves to score, under my system it could be achieved with something like
A: {5,3,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0}
but maybe people are averse to receiving nothing? Then instead it could be
B: {6,4,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1}.
It feels sort of like a participation trophy though? System B would create a different mechanic if multipliers are used. Itās not clear to me what other implications might be. Iāll see if I can backtest a few systems using the results from different threads I can find.
I think itās a fundamental question of what we want to reward. Under your proposed scoring, would a player with six 9th-place finishes beat someone with two gold medals and four last-place finishes? Because I want to say the person with the golds is the clear winner there.
There wouldnāt be any 9th place finishes, only finishes in the ā6th to 10th place rangeā. We donāt bother ordering them.
I meant anything falling within that range. I used 9th because thatās where my tiered scoring cuts off (4th-9th) and Iām trying to evaluate across multiple scoring systems. Point is that I donāt think the middle range should be outscoring polarized podium/bottom players. Iām pretty likely to add one of my top 3 to my playlist if itās not in there already. I wonāt be adding the 15th best and probably not even the 6th best (although it depends on strength of the submissions).
I am sorry. I didnāt read your post properly. Under the system I proposed upthread six midling finishes score 48 points and two firsts and six last place finishes score 34 points (assuming 15 participants).
For comparison under the current scoring rules six 9th places also win with 36 points.
What we shouldnāt lose sight of is that having a discrete rank/score for every submission might be the most fun. I enjoyed sweating the reveals and every revealed that wasnāt my song meant I got an extra point. I got a kick out of that.
The fun factor should be more important than a fine-tuned scoring system.
This is true. My counterpoint to that is I was planning on having a faster contest turnover than ChrisV. Personally I only got a kick out of hitting him with Bill Callahan which I thought he would either love or hate. The difference between 4th and 13th feels the same to me. I started losing interest though when there were days between reveals.
OK, I can see your point. I have never hosted a Walrus before so I can only guess how much work it is going to be. Someone more experienced like @ChrisV can chime in if there is a way to streamline the process.
Also, if the forum is interested in always having a Walrus running, we should probably have the next Walrus start taking submissions when the reveal starts so we donāt have a week gap between them.
Less is more
Maybe we should rotate games. This place could use a Sheep.
Yeah I like that idea.
Wonder how many people we could get in a werewolf game
This has really made me come to grips with what a terrible stereotypical American I am. I literally got nothing.
Thanks but Iāll just have to go with La Bamba