CGDC3: update
Now that we have seen all the entries for the 3rd Casual Gameplay Design Competition, it is almost time for the voting to begin for the coveted Audience prize.
We will be back later today with an update that will include a form with links to each of the competition entries, along with PayPal links to vote for each game. This system has worked well in the past and we encourage you to contribute on behalf of the efforts that all of the competition participants have put into their games. Voting only costs $1 (USD), but we encourage you to donate as much as you can to each game you vote for. Donations received will go directly to each participant following the competition and the number of votes received will determine which entry receives the Audience Prize of $200!
In the meantime, scoring continues on the judging of the entries, and we will be announcing the results in a few days.
Jay, maybe you will list criteria when it is actually time to vote, but I'm wondering whether the plain old gamer is supposed to think about how well the "replay" theme was used or just vote for our favorite game(s)?
A good question, NotSoWize.
The Audience prize is for the JIG community to vote on which entry you feel is your favorite of the competition. You may use any criteria that you feel is appropriate and we wouldn't want to dictate how you vote.
The judging panel (of 5 reviewers including myself) uses a set of rubrics for scoring each of the entries, and those scores will determine the other prize winners of this competition (First place and Runner-up). The Audience prize voting does not factor into those scores.
audience award = popularity prize
In the last one, the audience took it rather serious if the theme was catered for or not.
Entrances where you "*grow* to the solution" were just as much yawned at, as entrances in this were your "*replay* the puzzle until your got it right".
The winner of Grow competition got the theme spot on, plus it had original look and interesting gameplay. I am sure from this pack can be found similarly good game as the games were, again, very high quality.
I personally found the "Replay" theme pretty difficult, yes pretty much every game can be replayed, but some of the entries were able to use the theme surprisingly well.
Rambling about the voting system
I'm sure that this issue has been raised before, (at the second competition) and I do see reason to it, but I feel the need to be the devil's advocate here, especially since I wasn't there to see the explanation during the second competition.
I need to pay, to be a volunteer vote caster, for a free gaming competition, on a free website, for free games. It could be just me, but... why?
what advantages does this way of voting have compared to, say, a secure webpage that can only be accessed once per IP, where you can select your top three out of the entries, points get added up in the end, most number ones is the winner?
And, how is the vote decided? most money wins? In that case, a developper has to merely dump 1000 dollars in his own link (which will be refunded anyway) to have the win.
Is it by most donations? cos then he can just donate the same 1000 dollars, 1 dollar at a time.
Or is it by unique donators? In which case I see no diffrence to the secured webpage I mentioned earlier.
It also increases difficulty for people like me, who don't have a credit card, nor a lot of money to spend, who use the website as a form of relief, and would love to vote, but due to the cost (Yes, one dollar is actually a lot for me, not to mention that I'd have problems getting it on a paypal account) they're not able to. I feel, no offence, sort of left out, excluded, exiled, if you will.
And where as I don't give a flying big's bottom if this happens with tvshows like idols, or the eurovision song contest or whatever, games are my lifeblood, and when one of the few sites I visit daily has a competition on some very yummy games, I want to be able to vote, damnit.
Anyway, cheers for your time, and keep in mind that all this rambling is mostly to get to understand the reasoning behind the system as well as to express the view of a slightly dissapointed, unable to pay to vote, gamer.
It's a good question, Deadl0ck, and I can appreciate the position you're in. Believe me, we have thought long and hard on the best means for voting.
Our primary concern is about ballot stuffing. Limiting voting to just one per IP doesn't limit voting to just one vote per person. There are *many* ways of getting around the IP limitation, and it would give advantage to those that know how to do it. This is unacceptable to us.
By requiring a "purchase" -- even a very small one such as 1 dollar -- we can be relatively certain that no ballot stuffing is occurring since each transaction points to a unique individual.
The chosen amount of the vote donation does not affect how many votes it counts for -- each donation counts only 1 vote, and only one vote per game is credited for each person donating.
I hope you understand the rationale behind the system. I am very sorry if you feel slighted, but the option you proposed would open the door to cheating and that is unacceptable to us.
Personally, I'm happy to donate a dollar, what the heck maybe even two, if it goes to people who give up their time and expertise to provide the entertainment which i don't have to pay for.
If you can't afford a dollar then ok, you have still been able to play these games for free, but i'd be interested to know how you can afford to pay for your internet connection.
Doesn't really prevent ballot stuffing by the game owners themselves. They could just buy up to $200 in votes and break even. If it were close, a $2 or 3 dollar investment could land you $200. In fact, it's not even an investment, because they get the money right back.
Not that any of these guys would do that, but it's possible.
empath - I don't think there is a way to prevent any sort of cheating/hacking behavior. If there's enough incentive, people will find a way to do it.
By requiring a purchase, we are reducing the likelihood that ballot stuffing will occur, which is really all we can do.
Limiting by IP is just asking for trouble, IMHO.
Like I said, it's worked very well in the past, there's no reason for us not to continue with the system we have in place. If we ever suspect any sort of foul play, however, we may have to choose an alternate method.
john -- reread jay's explanation for how the donations work. Each donation counts as exactly one vote, regardless of the size. If you consider it ballot stuffing to be able to vote for yourself once, you might be interested to know that presidential candidates often vote in their own elections, too.
Andy: I don't pay for my internet connection, it is included in my rent. Not that that's really any of your buisness, but hey. Regardless, trust me, if I had the money, I'd donate 25, 30 bucks into the competition, and the same amount to jay every month, to help him with bandwith costs and hosting. I don't though, yet I still use the site, so the least I can do is give my input on certain things, raise certain issues that, I am sure, other people feel likewise about, and express my dissapointment about not bieng able to do the least bit in return for playing the games, like voting, cos I don't have the money.
Jonah: I think what John is getting at is part of my argument as well... As far as I can tell, anyone can set up any number of paypal accounts and use them all to donate 1 dollar to thier favorite game.
that said, I can see the reason behind Jay's reasoning. Dynamic IP's can vote more then once, static IP households only once, and as he said, there are numerous ways to get around. In the end, a cheater is less likely to spend the effort, time, and initial cost of setting up a hundred (or so) paypal accounts, chuck a dollar in each one, then vote with each seperate acount. The genral idea behind most cheating is bieng lazy, and can't win it the hard way. (Be it by making a good game, running a good campaign, or whatever).
Even if I did play the devil's advocate earlier, I do agree with jay that it is a better method of voting then a one vote per IP system. What I tried to do was challenge him (since he's smart!) to think of a way to make voting possible for the very unwealthy, credit card devoid, or the paypal-less people of the world.
Who knows... maybe it'll come one day. :)
Cheers, Deadl0ck. ^_^
Update