A fairer competition selection system

I think that kind of system would work well. + rep

 

Don't think we are talking about a specific competition, just the general way competitions where people need to vote turn out (usually the one with the biggest friend list wins). George is looking for a better way to do these, where your friend list does not influence you win or loose.

@George
Why not let the judges add a little motivation for their scores, can be just a few words or a bit more, but they should know why they gave their scores, right?

 

great.

 

Yes, that would work too. Your system mentioned before along with constructive feedback from judges could be a good one.

Problem with a judging panel is just that. The opinions are too narrow on something that is highly subjective i.e. too much power in the hands of few individuals. Which is why personally I'd prefer a system with a large number of votes. Large number of voters would take account of "outliers" and would be more representative of different sections of the player base.

Any system will have it's advantages and disadvantages that's for sure. The worst system anyone could use is a forum vote method. It's convenient but completely flawed.

Seems to me the most fairer system will be the least convenient with the most amount of work.

The judging panel one you mentioned earlier with feedback seems to be the middle one one. Some work required but it's still fairly convenient to run. So although not completely ideal it would be far better and the most likely candidate to be used because it strikes a good balance between the various factors.

 

live events could be hosted in form of a goup talk via one of the radio stations.

every judge could say a few words about a participant and give his votes in the mainchat then.

the idea of erasing the best and worst result is a very good idea i think.

 

event creators could hand in their event design to a unbound party for a four eye principle to look over the rules before it gets put public.

could be a players gremium of 2-3 people who look over to see if something should be added and so on.

 

We are not discussing the actual events, these are already pretty good, we are discussing the choosing of the winners and to figure out a simple, yet fair way of doing that.

@George
I said 5 people, but this of course could be a little more as well, 10 maybe.
I know more people give a better representation of the opinion of the players and that works with automated questionnaires and such (the more the better), but with these things it is better to have a smaller group of people that can be trusted, then to have a large group with a lot of work, which in the end will probably result in the same winners.

Maybe we should try both for the same competition, make a panel with a few people AND let the players decide a winner and see what that tells us.

We could even make the points count 50-50, so the experts point and the peoples point both count for 50% of the final result.

 

Since panel of judges is mentioned often. I'll try to put my concerns with that differently.

In a merit based competition I'm of the opinion all sections of the player base should be allowed to enter and stand an equal chance of winning. This would for example include players with a low ped balance as well as a high ped balance. How would that work in practice with a panel of judges? Since the opinion of the panel will be limited to the number of judges be it 3 or 10 and most crucially their opinions, views, backgrounds etc You can quite easily get a situation where the panel will be biased against some sections of the player base. For example if the judges are all well of players with a high ped balance the results are likely to discreminate against newbie players who may have a low ped balance. I'm using ped balance as an example only. In reality a competition would or at least should include entrants from a multitude of different backgrounds.

Sure there can be solutions to that as well, you could have categories for entrants, judges carefully picked to include diversity etc etc

 

Hello,

my point is that judging in terms of equal chances to all and all are in the same prize winning category cant be applied to 100%
cause judging is not digital 1:0 - 0:1 where either or is considered. Judging is emotional, analog. that cant be precisely calculated.

maybe we can move in another direction to help us getting as close to the 100% as possible.

what we havent considered yet:
still a jury has the possibility to talk to each others and determine what will be specially viewed on.
e.g. fashion event - "this time we will focus on strength of colors" "variety of textures applied"

with these kind of variables the jury would set with each others we could try to generate an analog judging field.
sets to the participants that they dont know what the judges will look for.
sets to the judges that they dont knwo what the participants will wear until they see them in the event walking.

so that would be quite near to a equal competition?


on the other side:

we have considered that a "biased jury" is not so good.

what are we doing with "biased participants" ?
the ones which cant take a one time defeat and just complain no matter what is set before the event?
the ones which always draw conspiracy and flaw as soon they dont win themself?
the ones which blaim rules after an event instead of before?
the ones who cant take an defeat upheaded but try to twist all decisions and have the feeling that the system must be wrong instead their own performance?
the ones you can only hardly reach and talk to unless they get their acknowledgement?
the ones which always insist of being right and all others must be the problem?

they are for me at least equal to be closely viewed on as the judges are.

we need psychological care for them at the events that they understand that the judges did not vote against them but for another participant. for that people have their trainers and staff with them at events to catch them. cause they break like glass if they dont win.

there are more than the two forms of being biased which where described here yet.

how can we handle them?