One-Synth-Challenge 56: Mono/Fury - Submissions and Voting

[stunkit]

Congrats!





While unpacking files

[V'ger]

Did you download from zip or torrent? And what operating system and unpack program are you using? I've tried both download options and both unpacks Ok, so my initial guess is that you might have an interrupted download? What did you use to download?Which browser or download app did you use?

[V'ger]

By the way, notice the new tab in the scoreboard called Analysis. This is mostly useful to sort when equal scores etc, but some might find it interesting nonetheless, check it out: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... lse&gid=10

[tonedef71]

It is probably not supposed to be funny, but I had to chuckle when I saw that a few of the entrants gave themselves more than one point (as much as five points). This circumstance did not actually pose any problems in this contest, since the top five placements were unaffected. However, it could have been a little awkward and embarrassing to enforce a penalty on the offender(s) if the broken scoring rule made a significant difference to the outcome.

Perhaps such an occasion could be avoided altogether. I cannot remember if this idea had already been suggested: assuming that each entrant name matches their voter name, is it possible for the spreadsheet's totaling formula to recognize the voter as an entrant and just subtract the value of the entrant's own vote from their total score? So regardless of what score one selects for his/her own track, the net effect is the same as a voting system where the entrant does not vote on his/her own track at all.

[bjporter]

It is probably not supposed to be funny, but I had to chuckle when I saw that a few of the entrants gave themselves more than one point (as much as five points). This circumstance did not actually pose any problems in this contest, since the top five placements were unaffected. However, it could have been a little awkward and embarrassing to enforce a penalty on the offender(s) if the broken scoring rule made a significant difference to the outcome.

Perhaps such an occasion could be avoided altogether. I cannot remember if this idea had already been suggested: assuming that each entrant name matches their voter name, is it possible for the spreadsheet's totaling formula to recognize the voter as an entrant and just subtract the value of the entrant's own vote from their total score? So regardless of what score one selects for his/her own track, the net effect is the same as a voting system where the entrant does not vote on his/her own track at all.

**EDIT** yes indeed a boo boo was had. Stay tuned for details.

[nitrowheels]

I agree on the penalty, when the personal honor code and the rules aren't enough, to preserve the clean essence of this nice community.

[V'ger]

It is probably not supposed to be funny, but I had to chuckle when I saw that a few of the entrants gave themselves more than one point (as much as five points). This circumstance did not actually pose any problems in this contest, since the top five placements were unaffected. However, it could have been a little awkward and embarrassing to enforce a penalty on the offender(s) if the broken scoring rule made a significant difference to the outcome.

Perhaps such an occasion could be avoided altogether. I cannot remember if this idea had already been suggested: assuming that each entrant name matches their voter name, is it possible for the spreadsheet's totaling formula to recognize the voter as an entrant and just subtract the value of the entrant's own vote from their total score? So regardless of what score one selects for his/her own track, the net effect is the same as a voting system where the entrant does not vote on his/her own track at all.

Well spotted and thanks for letting us know! This is mea culpa, should have double checked and not relied on just the trusting cursory glance. Offenders disqualified (DQ) in the results list but their points given to others still stand. As you say it wouldn't have mattered much had all their votes been discounted, but there seems little wrong with those anyway, it was just their own benefit that was (more than) lost.

The ideal would be to have a formula in the sheet to automatically sort this like you say, but not sure if possible at the moment. However, a general rules vote is coming up soon which might anyway eliminate this risk with a new system voted in so let's see what comes of that first.

[_ctx]

Before it's too late: Congrats to Cactoos!

And of course to bjporter, yeager and kraftraum. BTW: were is kraftraum? I am sooo curious which price he will choose...

Thank you all for the votes and the comments!

About the self voting: I do not think that anybody would try to cheat like that, as the votes are published afterwards.

[nitrowheels]

the votes are published afterwards.

isn't the voting secret now? Here https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/rules is written "Max 1 point to your own entry. Since voting is now secret".

thanks for the clarification and happy music making.

[_ctx]

As far I understood it the voting is secret while voting, but the votes will be published when the contest is over... Maybe it changed?

[bjporter]

As far I understood it the voting is secret while voting, but the votes will be published when the contest is over... Maybe it changed?

Indeed they are published afterword for now.

[tonedef71]

Well spotted and thanks for letting us know! This is mea culpa, should have double checked and not relied on just the trusting cursory glance. Offenders disqualified (DQ) in the results list but their points given to others still stand. As you say it wouldn't have mattered much had all their votes been discounted, but there seems little wrong with those anyway, it was just their own benefit that was (more than) lost.

I dunno, maybe I am just a softy, but I am not sure I would have disqualified the entrants, especially if they were first-time offenders; also, it seems very easy for someone to make a mistake in their voting and not even know it, since the voting is secret. I definitely would have reduced their self-votes down to one and probably would have left it at that. If the particular situation warrants it, a stern public warning would send a message to everyone, but I suppose without some kind of enforcement to back it up, it is just equivalent to a paper tiger, eh? There may have been some precedent set recently; if I recall correctly, this self-scoring violation was observed in OSC 54 -- was that entrant disqualified?

So to be fair, if the offenders are to be punished and made an example of, then ALL of the self-scoring offenders in OSC 56 should be disqualified. Once again, I will not name any names (especially since I really do appreciate the remaining offender in that list and the track he entered). In the interest of fairness and integrity, though, ALL of the self-scoring offenders in OSC 56 have to be brought down -- we must not be perceived as showing favoritism.

[bjporter]

So to be fair, if the offenders are to be punished and made an example of, ......

Hey thanks for all the thoughts and consideration. That's what's nice about this being a democratic and public type of contest. We can all speak out.

Any news will be posted here of course on this issue

[V'ger]

Well spotted and thanks for letting us know! This is mea culpa, should have double checked and not relied on just the trusting cursory glance. Offenders disqualified (DQ) in the results list but their points given to others still stand. As you say it wouldn't have mattered much had all their votes been discounted, but there seems little wrong with those anyway, it was just their own benefit that was (more than) lost.

I dunno, maybe I am just a softy, but I am not sure I would have disqualified the entrants, especially if they were first-time offenders; also, it seems very easy for someone to make a mistake in their voting and not even know it, since the voting is secret. I definitely would have reduced their self-votes down to one and probably would have left it at that. If the particular situation warrants it, a stern public warning would send a message to everyone, but I suppose without some kind of enforcement to back it up, it is just equivalent to a paper tiger, eh? There may have been some precedent set recently; if I recall correctly, this self-scoring violation was observed in OSC 54 -- was that entrant disqualified?

So to be fair, if the offenders are to be punished and made an example of, then ALL of the self-scoring offenders in OSC 56 should be disqualified. Once again, I will not name any names (especially since I really do appreciate the remaining offender in that list and the track he entered). In the interest of fairness and integrity, though, ALL of the self-scoring offenders in OSC 56 have to be brought down -- we must not be perceived as showing favoritism.

Indeed, I missed yet another one.. Triple checking must obviously be the order of the day here.

I guess you're right that a disqualification is not a big deal for those outside the prizes, but then not all compete for just those and will take a good placing too. Besides, there is no stronger reaction to make other than complete removal from the results or even a competition ban, so it's still up there in the order of things.

Yes, there was a similar situation before where no penalties were handed out, and yes, mistakes can be made, but last time the system was relatively new so the tolerance level obviously high, but the total evidence for people not reading rules at all is adding up so I think time to get slightly stricter. Hopefully a new tech or logical solution can eliminate this self-scoring issue altogether soon..

[stunkit]

Wait, I didn't get, why I'm DQ? What I did wrong?