Life In 19x19

I think nominating _is_ voting, with the exception that voting carries on after all the initial moves have been picked, and unlike nominating isn't open to "new" moves.

Actually, I don't think fwiffo has broken the tie. That mechanic is going to lead to real exploits, where players deliberately vote "somewhere obscure" in the hope that they get to be the first come first serve tiebreaker. In reality, it's first to six votes has the majority and gets the move, with the caveat that no-one can move their vote if it is currently on the leading (or joint leading) option (to prevent infinite cycles). I think all people voting on a minority option should pick a "possible to win" option to switch to until 6/10 is reached, but it's not my decision.

If anyone thinks my point makes sense, Daniel's change is valid I would have thought, and would lead to the following:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ -------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . c . . |
$$ | . . . . . C d f . |
$$ | . . . . a e . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------[/go]

a(E5): Chew Terr, Jordus, daniel_the_smith
b(F6): --
c(G7): Kirby
d(G6): prokofiev, Marcus
e(F5): MountainGo, topazg, fwiffo
f(H6): Joaz Banbeck

Players entitled to change their votes are: Kirby, prokofiev, Marcus, Joaz Banbeck

EDIT: nvm, just saw topazg's post.

As noted sometime earlier, I did not see the other 3-4. However, I choose to move my vote to the 3-3 (c).

Marcus wrote:As noted sometime earlier, I did not see the other 3-4. However, I choose to move my vote to the 3-3 (c).

I'll go where my fellow 3-4 nominator goes, and change to 3-3 as well. Might as well have a 3 way tie again.

I think voting should be anonymous and instant run off.

E.g., everyone lists the nominated moves in order of their preference and PMs the moderator. The moderator uses this system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting to determine what gets played.

To move things along, the moderator doesn't have to wait for every last person if someone is out of town or something. In the case of genuine ties random.org can help.

daniel_the_smith wrote:I think voting should be anonymous and instant run off.

E.g., everyone lists the nominated moves in order of their preference and PMs the moderator. The moderator uses this system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting to determine what gets played.

It needs to be public as otherwise there's nothing to go on (one could nominate a good move then choose a bad one or vice-versa). Public instant runoff after the nominations are in is possible.

I could live with public instant runoff. That would at least keep it to one post each for voting

daniel_the_smith wrote:I could live with public instant runoff. That would at least keep it to one post each for voting

Yes. In the interest of time, I think we either need to do this or (much quicker) just have everyone's "nomination" be their vote, with however many are tied for 1st decided between by random.org or some such.

prokofiev wrote:Yes. In the interest of time, I think we either need to do this or (much quicker) just have everyone's "nomination" be their vote, with however many are tied for 1st decided between by random.org or some such.

That might be the easiest thing to do.

I like nominations as votes.

I vote for nominations as votes.

That's fine by me. I'm even OK with randomly picking the winner in case of ties. It makes picking random moves for your side to conceal your identity a lot more risky.

I vote for having a clear set of rules before the game ends.

That's why we're doing a 9x9 for starters.

fwiffo wrote:... I'm even OK with randomly picking the winner in case of ties. It makes picking random moves for your side to conceal your identity a lot more risky.

Not really. As already noted, the random move player has to make random moves for both sides, otherwise his choice of random move generators can be examined for evidence of affiliation. Once he is making random moves for both sides, he is just as likely to make a bad move for one team as for the other.