Empress of Xpanded - (Discussion on Voting-Rules)

(26-11-2022 23:27 )Regenerated Wrote:  I've found from a look through the voting thread that many forum members have nominated less than the preferred (if "preferred" is the correct expression) 8.

Including my own. I stand by that decision as I don't wish to list more votes just for the sake of naming names. I've followed the same process in another babe voting competition.

I agree, which is why I make it clear that it's absolutely fine to do this. However, because I'm doing a ranked-voting points system, it is vulnerable to the impact of disproportionate point swamping through tactical voting, particularly where there is alot of nominating of only one nominee. This is why I decided to apply a new rule in the tallying-up of points for every nominee where there are less than 4 nominees submitted.

(27-11-2022 23:15 )Doddle Wrote:  I think the idea that you could oblige people to vote for 8, in order to be counted, wouldn't work.

I think Doddle said this because I worded it in the new rules update that "voters are encouraged to nominate 8". I changed this to "Voters can vote for a maximum of 8 Xpanded nightshow babes (you may declare any number of nominees less than 8 if you wish)"

(28-11-2022 21:58 )crankshaft Wrote:  

(27-11-2022 23:15 )Doddle Wrote:  I think the idea that you could oblige people to vote for 8, in order to be counted, wouldn't work.

I think Doddle said this because I worded it in the new rules update that "voters are encouraged to nominate 8". I changed this to "Voters can vote for a maximum of 8 Xpanded nightshow babes (you may declare any number of nominees less than 8 if you wish)"

Bless you for supposing I read the new rules, or even knew there were new rules when I wrote that. It was just a general (if maybe dizzily presented) idea about the problems of trying to make it more meaningful to vote for 8 than for less.

(28-11-2022 07:25 )crankshaft Wrote:  Apologies to Harry_da_Monk for petulantly removing his rep (which I restored back after) in my misguided, frankly stupid auto-reflex denial that there was anything flawed with the ranking-system rules I set for this year’s Empress of Xpanded 2022 vote. He said the scoring system was flawed and he was right despite me initially admonishing him for thinking he was wrong. So thanks to Harry for opening my eyes to it. My tweak of the rules means it lessens the impact of that slight flaw in the ranked points system. I hope it neatly tucks in a leveller on the impact of any statistical aberration from the tactical voting tendency to exploit the ranked voting system

Thanks for your apology (and restored rep point) Crankshaft.

As I stated in my first response to being singled out, I did not mean to cause offence with what I considered a casual remark to justify just giving one babe's name. Again, as previously stated, I certainly didn't mean to undermine the competition, and to be truthful I'm quite surprised it has caused such a stir that it has necessitated a re-writing of the competition rules. I'm not quite sure what I think about that after the competition has started, but it is your competition after all.

Anyway, let's leave it at that and return to commenting on the babes which is the main reason we're on here!!!

PS: I will probably now add a second name to my original nomination, now the rules have changed.

(30-11-2022 00:17 )Harry_da_Monk Wrote:  ... to be truthful I'm quite surprised it has caused such a stir that it has necessitated a re-writing of the competition rules. I'm not quite sure what I think about that after the competition has started, but it is your competition after all.

Hi Harry,
(Re-written/updated 16:39 1/12 - with 1 or 2 corrections):

Well, it's true that your comment prompted me to look at the rules again, but don't take it personally because I think I would have come to the same conclusion if there had been a steady flow of votes for single nominees, especially if the majority were starting to concentrate around a particular nominee. Arguably my action may have nipped it in the bud. Perhaps more likely than not, no single nominee would have had more single nominee votes than all others (ie: of the 2 obvious leading contenders) so there possibly wouldn’t have been a problem anyway, but I guess I didn't want to take that chance.*

Of course it now turns out that you and Bluemoon99 have re-submitted votes with more nominees, so reestablishing full points for your top choice. Clearly Maria is your outright favourite so it is right that she gets the full 8 points in your vote. I’m glad you both re-voted because the vote more accurately reflects your choice in terms of the rules (it reflected it more in spirit with her being your sole nominee). It might look pointless that I changed the rules then, only that I wanted to stymy any trend of more people doing the same. I feel there is a principle to uphold to keep relative merit of all the candidates in relation to each other in proportion which risked getting lost if there was a flow of single nomination votes more for one candidate than the others. So I introduced a disincentive to voters discounting other contenders when elevating the progress of their preferred candidate (by only selecting one nominee).

And it wasn't really a complete rewriting of the rules, though it was quite a significant change (less than the full points allocation for 1st, 2nd & 3rd nominee in votes with less than 4 nominees). This rule change was abit reactive and the whole process of the vote this year has not been ideal in that the whole process has ended up abit of a live experiment as I trialled a new system and then hastily amended the rules while the vote has been live!

I did make clear from the start of this vote that it is perfectly fine for people to have less than 8 nominees, and even just one if they wish. I have just felt that I had to nip in the bud the building up of any trend towards the disproportionate exaggerating of some nominee's points tallies in relation to others’. This exclusive tactical voting tendency to exploit the points system for one's favourite wouldn't be a problem in a non-points voting system, but it is potentially more of an issue in this points system.

[*You saying what you said when you said it ended up being quite timely, and it might have been more difficult for me to introduce a rule change later on.]

Ok, so I've given this a little think and thought I'd just share my two penneth on how I think the vote could be done more simply.

This is certainly not a criticism of Crankshaft or the task he has taken on to help decide who should be 'Empress of Xpanded 2022'. I need to make that point very clear, as my single comment of 'the scoring system is flawed' did previously cause some grief. This thread is a 'Discussion on Voting-Rules', and that's what I'm doing.

So straight out, why is there the need for people to make so many nominations? The list of eligible nominees contains 19 names (20 if Raven is to be added) and people can choose up to 8. Why so many? Yes, we all might like many of the girls that appear on screen, but the whole point is choosing your absolute favourites. At some point in the selection process, you are going to have to pick a top 5, a top 3, and then a number one.

I imagine the reason is so that a larger pool of babes gets nominated. Then there can be a full top 10 rundown that gives a nice namecheck to those girls before the Empress of Xpanded is crowned. The thing is, everyone on this forum appears to have such diverse tastes anyway with lots of different babes being nominated, so a top 10 list is created quite naturally.

So let's cut to the chase. Why not ask the forum to nominate just 3 babes – no more, no less. From the current entries, a quick tally-up shows 15 different babes will be namechecked. This is easily enough to create a top 10 list. To help give more gravitas to the number one choice (or number two choice) you could award points such as 5pts for first, 3pts for 2nd, and 1pt for 3rd, or some variation.

I'm sure this would deliver a very similar, if not identical, result to the voting system you are currently running without all the faff and it would eliminate the need for different rules for when only 1, 2 or 3 nominations are cast (as is currently the case).

I don't believe this should be implemented this year, now the voting is nearing completion, but perhaps could be considered for the inevitable 'Empress of Xpanded 2023'.

(07-12-2022 14:14 )Harry_da_Monk Wrote:  Why not ask the forum to nominate just 3 babes – no more, no less.

Some members like to give more than 3 nominees, and I felt there was a feeling to nominate more than the 5 that was the limit last year. I put it at 8 this year, making it clear that people could nominate any number less than the 8 if they wished.

Re: this year's competition, Re: that rule change I made on 27/11 for lower points tallies for nominees with votes of 1, 2 and 3 nominees only, I made the change because I wanted to subdue disproportionate surges in points in low selective nomination votes (tactical voting for 'personal favourites') relatively exaggerating those nominee's points tallies in relation to all other candidates. Since doing that rule-change, however, it has transpired that neither of the foremost leading candidates have significantly had many single nomination votes, however, it could be that this didn't become a problem because I made the rule change! So far in the vote, as I write this, one candidate has received 3 single nominee votes which under the rules means they lose out on 9 points they may have had otherwise, but overall, in general, what I can say is that as a result of the rule changes made on 27/11, there has been no significant bias in the vote in any of the nominee's point-counts in relation to all other nominees.

However, I have looked at the rules update I put in place, and on reflection, I can see it is unduly harsh to restrict nominee point-counts where people list 3 nominees. Therefore, I am suspending part of that rule change I made on 27/11 for votes with 3 nominees. Votes with 3 nominees will now get the full-point tally for each nominee (ie: 8 points for 1st, 7 for 2nd & 6 for 3rd place).

I can only apologise for how I have conducted this year's vote. I'm afraid I've used this year's voting process as a bit of a live experiment, trialling the ranked points-based system and then hastily amending the rules while the vote has been live which has not been ideal. However, arguably, it may make us collectively understand better the intricacies of a point-based voting system and tweaking that voting system to factor in a suppression mechanism to dampen down disproportionate point boosts from the tactical voting tendency to exploit the ranked points voting system for 'personal favourite’ nominees.

(27-11-2022 00:25 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  I think it's a shame that there's a need to have to try & make the competition formats corruption proof in order to prevent a small minority trying to gain some extra advantage for their favorite babe. I have a few favourites that I'd be happy to see win, but I've never felt desperate enough to have to look for a way to beat the system.
I believe that it's best to let this comp play out, in the hope that most vote with good intentions & integrity.

I guess that the real aim of any comp is finding a balance between fairness, but still make it exciting.
In its simplest form one nomination per member & then a vote from a shortlist should find a true winner, & eliminates any gameplay, but may lack some of the excitement of the formats with various rounds & head to heads. The worse situation is when votes can't be split & some head to heads have 3 instead of 2, which I hate.
My preference is that we all vote in the same way, comps with head to head rounds just lead to fanboy tactics where they vote for their No1 & ignore the other head to heads. I accept that some choose to not vote in a particular head to head when it includes 2 babes that they've never seen, hence why I prefer a simple one nomination format.

In regard to this great effort to try to find a fair system which allows singular or multiple nominations, it has been pointed out before that a one-eyed fanboy can easily counteract this system by nominating their number one along with a number of below average babes who stand no chance of winning.

(08-12-2022 23:53 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  In regard to this great effort to try to find a fair system which allows singular or multiple nominations,

thanks

(08-12-2022 23:53 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  ..it has been pointed out before that a one-eyed fanboy can easily counteract this system by nominating their number one along with a number of below average babes who stand no chance of winning.

know what you mean (instead of ‘below average’, I’d word it maybe ‘more marginal contenders’), and there is a little bit of that, but generally, the fact that there are more voters doing this in support of one candidate more than supporters of any other candidate are doing with their favourite candidates is likely in direct proportion to the relative larger popularity of that candidate compared to all others!