Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Voting Etiquette?
Nozcumber
Posts: 199Enigmanaut
Is it deemed acceptable to vote for your own submissions?
Should there be a maximum voting limit per person, round?
Should the option to vote be locked out on your own submissions? (encouraging you to rally/sign up your friends, which might be desirable activity to PCHHQ...)
Would visibility of the individual votes change voting behaviour?
What do people think?
Post edited by Nozcumber on
Comments
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpI'm not sure I'd disable self-voting (even though it would solve the above problem). I have vote for my own submission once, but in that case it was because I didn't want another submission to win (because it just sounded like a generic arcadey web game as opposed to an actual puzzle) so I voted up my own and other submissions equally. (Kind of a very expensive down-vote.)
Not sure if the community as a whole would approve of that kind of behaviour or not... Feel free to comment.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpStrange huh?
I just have to remember to check towards the end of voting in order to check how it's all going.
I'm assuming there is no limit on the number of puzzle pieces you can 'own'? Also (I know it's a bad idea even before finishing the sentence) did anyone consider pieces having a lifespan so that people are encourages to vote rather than saving up in order to swing one specific vote? (I don't think you could really do that given that you can buy pieces but it's just something I was thinking about.)
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
1 • Vote Down 1Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpKale said: I could push Escher's Prison through if I wanted to, but since currently 260 out of the 300 votes are mine, I feel like I'm being a pushy jerk.
It's sort of a weird feeling to have all these puzzles pieces and feel like using them for what I want is an affront to democracy and the wishes of the community :-P
Jesse said: You are the picture of grace and good sportsmanship!
This Beta is a test of the voting system, to see how it works, and it's exploits, so these discussions are only healthy. So interesting question then - is it considered unsportsmanlike to save up your votes to heavily back an entry you believe in?
I personally pushed through the entry I wanted to support, 'like a jerk' :)
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpFor clarity, I am going to use the term “member” for non-paying members and “creative director” for paying members.
As a member, I must say that I dislike this voting system. Because of the advantage creative directors have over members, it makes a member feel feckless with their votes. For example, Kale said that he/she used 260 puzzle pieces to try and push through Escher’s Prison. 260! As a member, I would need to log in 26 straight days to accrue that many puzzle pieces, whereas a creative director can accrue that many in 11 days without logging in. Not only does it make my pieces feel worthless, but it seems like creative directors are using their wealth to push through submissions that they really want to see, particularly their own. Meanwhile, creative directors less invested in that particular vote can wait until they submit something themselves and then force their submission through on that vote. Rinse and repeat. At best, it is a battle amongst creative directors (or so it is perceived from here at least).
The argument might arise that I should pay if I want to feel better involved. First, I would say that the willingness to put money into PCH does not directly reflect investment in it. There are many reasons that people may want to be involved in PCH but can’t or are unwilling to pay for it. For some, it might just be for a season until they can pay. Even for those who never will pay, it is likely that Schell Games and PCH get more publicity from keeping these members around than they would from driving them off. This follows the idea of the gift economy—the same reason that the film industry did not collapse after VCRs, music sales did not falter after the radio, and why film, movies, software, and game sales have all increased despite file sharing. Studies found that the people who used free versions of those things were the most likely to end up paying for them too because it showed an investment in music, film, gaming, software, etc. An important part of this is offering something extra for people who pay (in this case submission rights). Of course it doesn’t mean that everyone who starts as a member will become a creative director, but historically the benefits have far outweighed the negatives. I would suggest that the key to building the PCH community is not to force a pay or observe dichotomy, which is how this is feeling right now, but a participate or pay-and-participate-further dichotomy (which I think was what was intended by the PCH team). My participation level is this: I can’t submit. I understand and agree that submitting is a paid privilege. I can vote, but it feels worthless. I can play the game/watch the episode, but with only one coming out each month, I’m likely to lose interest and stop following PCH if I have no other means of participation between the releases. I can participate within the forum community, but there are many game-centric forums out there to choose from (and the forums are not exactly active these days anyway).
I suppose my recommendation would be to nix the puzzle piece advantage for creative directors. If you still want to make sure that members sign in every day for their puzzle pieces, then okay. But knowing that a creative director can completely ignore my vote, even if it doesn’t happen, takes away the pleasure of voting. As someone without a puzzle piece advantage, I also feel like I am wasting my limited resources if I vote for a submission that I think deserves to win but is overmatched to the point that my pieces cannot make any significant difference; yet the irony on the other end is that it can be just one person who is driving that leading submission to victory! It’s like how people do not like the republican or democrat candidates, but won’t vote for an independent because they feel like they are essentially throwing their vote away.
As a concluding example of the creative director advantage (special thank you to @Kale for being so open about voting):
Submission Others Owner
War and Piece 57 20
Escher’s Prison 40 260
Two creative directors were involved in the aquarium room submission, so I can only imagine how many pieces they could use combined to push their submission through. I don’t blame any of them for this, but the system needs to take it into account. I usually find this to be true: If there is a strategy for voting, it is at the expense of democracy.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpJust wanted to reiterate that I meant what I said: I don't blame anyone for anything that has gone on so far. Some of the examples I used in my post I actually wanted to win anyway, so there are no sour grapes there!
Like it's been said before, this is a beta voting system. I'm hoping my post is helpful as the PCH team continues to iterate it.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpHaving said that, on the subject of people who decide not to pay potentially feeling marginalized: My only comment there is that the Kickstarter funds for PCH will only last a limited amount of time. (I think it was 6 episodes?) and after that point PCH has to be making money. If you make no distinction between paid and non-paid membership then there is no incentive to pay. Granted you may end up with a more involved community but you can have the greatest community in the world, but it doesn't help if PCH has to shut down due to lack of funds.
Without wanting to dismiss your comments (which are valid), I just wonder what other potential alternatives you/we can think of.
Personally I think it's way too soon to consider throwing the voting system away. I think it could work, we just need to drag a bunch of friends in and so increase the overall number of puzzle pieces within the PCH economy.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpThe problem with voting is that everyone wants to have an equal say or it isn't very satisfactory. Voting and feeling like your vote counted for less than others often leaves negative feelings instead.
So I do think a more democratic voting system needs to be in place, but I also agree with you @Werehare that perhaps different incentives would need to replace the puzzle piece advantage.
I do still maintain that the gift economy idea should not be discounted as a driving force for success. All the industries I previously mentioned were scared of the technologies that allowed people to use their products for free, but those technologies ending up being a financial boon despite their ability to produce free material. This was because their material was spread to a larger audience. For example, it's easier for me to get a friend to come and join and participate (and keep participating) if they feel they can be significantly involved, even if it is not fully involved (such as submission rights). Would having submission rights plus the convenience of not having to log in to get your puzzle pieces every day be enough to encourage ponying up for a membership? In this model, I think you will attract more people and keep them here in the PCH community, however I also think it's likely that more people will hang around for free for awhile before eventually deciding to pay up. But if 25% of 500 people are creative directors instead of 50% of 200, you are still making more money. But I don't think the percentages would take such a drastic hit anyway (though I could be wrong). I suppose a survey could be called of all current members to see if they would have signed up under just those benefits.
Also, I think it would be a good idea to have surveys on the last couple of votes asking for which preferences everyone had, whether they voted, etc. This will give us a good picture of how democratic the votes have been thus far.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpAgain, not intended in any way as a rebuff. I just thought it was an interesting statistic. It could still work, but I think it would only work on a very large scale.
On a related note there is a website called Yucata which is a fantastic place for playing boardgames online. It is completely free, has no ads, has thousands of players and is supported just by donations. The whole thing is run by just one person and in the 6 months that I've had an account I've seen several messages from the owner politely reminding people that he needs donations in order to keep the thing running... That's a niche site and one guy supporting it in his spare time!
Anyways, back on topic...
One thing that does occur to me is that you could perhaps give everyone the opportunity to vote, but members can only pick a fixed number of things to vote in?
Either that or maybe paying members could maybe pick people from the forums who are making really good contributions and favour them. Each paying member gets one puzzle minion who gets extra privilages? (OK, forget the silly terminology but you get the idea.) Maybe they get more of a taste of what full membership is like so that they are further encouraged to jump in?
Again though, it almost feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot from a business stand-point. I would have thought that the people who are most frustrated that they can't be involved are the people most likely to buy a membership (as long as they don't, as you pointed out, become alienated... which I suppose is the trick).
(Oh and seriously... If you like board games then take a look at http://www.yucata.de)
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpI'm a parent of 2 elementary age kids who scour the internet for free interactive kid friendly sites (free because they know I won't pay for them to stare at a screen for hours on something with no educational merit). They've been non-paying members to sites like Poptropica and Animal Jam. With these sites, if you are not a paying member, you cannot greatly customize your appearance, or wear the coolest costumes, or trade your non-member stuff for cool member stuff. It didn't stop them from playing. At times they feel it's unfair, but then again...only paid members can level the playing field. So...we don't expect things to feel fair...unless we pay for it. We just expect things to be fun and safe, which will keep us coming back.
I have to say, PCH has something unique here that could really be played up. (Perhaps you already do this...if so, forgive me) Let's say my child is a non-paying member and they're dying to submit their really cool ghost. I don't want to pay for a yearly membership because who knows if this is a passing fad. So...I pay for a 24-hour pass, which allows me a paid members' puzzles pieces, and allows me to submit my child's artwork (which, of course, has merit! Any time spent unglued from tech gadgets doing something creative is what a parent loves) and for a small extra fee, I can snag another code that allows me to have "X" number of votes in my pocket for when the actual voting on my child's entry begins. Fantastic. I get the experience of being a paid member, and if it goes well, and my kid (or myself(!)) wants to try it again and again, I'll take a hard look at the cost for a year's membership...I'm hooked. Now....let's say my kid's artwork is not doing well, even with my "banked" votes, or it's doing very well, but it's a nailbiter....I find myself telling grandma or grandpa...or my husband about it...and poof! Out comes a quick, tiny payment via paypal to nudge that entry. Is it fair?
Well, I'm not paying for fair...I've just paid for some fun.
Perhaps my child's entry, even though it wasn't a winner, is kept, "framed," in a cool "art gallery room" for her to admire and show her friends. In the end, I've spent a little money for my child to have quality, creative crayon-to-paper inspiration time, and it's on display for all to see.
So...that's kind of how I see it. Keep it fun, and I'll be less grumbly about what's fair. Perhaps give me tiny things I can vote on (perhaps things generated from the developers) where I know every person, paid or not, can only submit one vote. Maybe there are things I can customize on the games themselves, like colors or what I look like (from a set group of choices~ perhaps previous submissions that didn't win in the big episodes, etc) or which creatures I want chasing me in a particular game I play. Perhaps certain submissions will only allow a maximum number of votes from the same account...others are a free for all where the win goes to the highest sponsor, whatever the cost, however "unfair" it seems to others. If I understand, at the outset, how it's going to roll, I doubt I'll mind. Of course, I have no idea what is possible....but those are the "little things" that make me want to keep playing....
I think an art gallery where past submissions are on display would be fun. Even if I'm not a fully paid member, I can show all my friends my one-time entry in a cool art gallery room. I am therefore reminded of that time I paid to give my kid's (or my own) creative effort a shot at winning. I send a link to grandma and grandpa to have a look too.....Christmas rolls around and poof(!) I have more "codes" to submit more art and ideas, etc. or even a year's paid membership....
- Spam
- Abuse
3 • Vote Down 3Vote UpAnother variation on this theme would be if you had the ability to gift puzzle pieces then that would also mean a parent can have a single account and multiple kids to have their own accounts. The parent passes out puzzle pieces to the kids when submissions come up. If the parent is a subscriber then these pieces come from their standard pool. If they don't want to subscribe right away then they can top-up at the point where a kid has something they want to submit.
I also quite like the idea that, if someone has an idea on the forums that they can't submit themselves, someone else could sponsor them by gifting them the puzzle pieces. (Or you use puzzle pieces to buy and gift an entry into a given submission round if you think that people might just spend a load of time begging for pieces on the forum.)
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpOppositely, if you prioritize what makes the best episode, you may still get the joy of eventually getting your work into an episode, but it requires hard work, patience, practice, and a bunch of other good attributes instead of paying for an advantage. I would hope that in such a situation the level of effort required would increase the feeling of success, similar to actually earning a trophy in sports rather than getting one for signing up.
I do think that encouraging the participation of children is a unique opportunity that PCH has and should take advantage of. If PCH can get parents with children (ala postArgus and his daughter) to be involved together, or even get some progressive classrooms involved in PCH, that could be a huge boon for both the kids and PCH's financial sustainability! I'm digressing here, but perhaps we could market a classroom account for teachers and also take opportunities to encourage kids-only submissions. I think the standard of a good game is something wonderful for children to shoot for as they do it with their parent or classroom, but we would still want to occasionally reward them with being able to see their work in action (and this is only assuming that they are not often getting work into episodes by their own merit; if the children get in anyway, then this point might be moot).
Back on point.
Why do we want a community-sourced game? I assume it is so that a community of people can create together, not so that people who have the money can create it. If we wanted a game created by the people with the money, then we would just let the game companies make the games.
But being able to vote when I have little efficacy is like the loaded gun in writing. If you put a loaded gun in a story, at some point it has to go off. If you give me the ability to vote, it needs to be able to matter. I would rather not be able to vote as a non-paying member than be able to vote but realize what I do is inconsequential.
So why are we here? Why is PCH here? Let's figure that out first, because that will change a lot of how we go about shaping it from here on out. Money is important; it is what allows us to have PCH to begin with. But I believe in figuring out what your goal is first and then finding a way to fund it. Money should serve the goal, not be allowed to rule it. If you have to give up the goal to be able to fund it, then I suppose the dream was irreconcilable. But I bet enough community creative problem solving would be able to figure out some solution without it coming to that.
So what are some of the goals of this project? What does the PCH team envision for it? What do we want from it?
Edited: Re-read the thread and deleted a poor argument that was also poorly written, making it seem like I was suggesting the PCH crew was making PCH out of some motivation of greed. Sorry to any PCH developer who happens to read this. If there were emoticons, I would insert an embarrassed one here.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpI guess my problem is one of expectations. I completely understand and agree with the idea that you get better privileges if you pay than if you don't pay. But I think a voting advantage is a bad area to try and give that privilege. When people vote, they expect their vote to matter. If I come to the site and see that I can't vote unless I pay, I'm actually more okay with that because my initial expectations are set up that way. In the current setup, I have the negative experience of failed expectations, or of a failed promise (the promise implied that my vote will matter when I am given the right to vote).
But as I said, how we devise the voting system will depend on what our goals are for PCH.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpExample 2: I agree that this isn't truly realistic. There are way too many variables in play at any one time that this scenario would ignore. For example, I spent all of my 60 puzzle pieces backing the sphinx in round one, leaving me with only the pieces I could muster from daily sign-ins when the sphinx was in round two. Plus there were other votings going on (the rooms) that I chose to then back instead. Meanwhile, it took a lot more pieces to get the sphinx to round two than it did to get the dog butler to round two.
Example 3: I don't think that all creative directors only vote when they have a submission and only for their own, but invested ones can definitely plot enough to have a substantial change of events occur against the wishes of many others (this is assumption though). To test my theory, we would need some market research, such as a survey asking members who they really wanted to win the last few votes, whether or not they voted, why or why not, what made them limit how much they would vote, etc. But anyway, even in that hypothetical case, someone could use all of their normal pieces and then purchase more pieces to then claim victory.
Overall, I think I've painted things a little too black and white at times too, mostly in trying to make points, but still maybe to my detriment. Either way, I've spent a lot of time talking about these things now. I sort of would rather just sit back and see what everyone else thinks at this point. I might be off-base or making too much of a deal over things that will get better when more people come. I just felt like the current set-up, with not as many people voting yet, was discouraging for those not able or willing to pay yet. That fact could get in the way of PCH's growth (if I'm not the only one who feels that way of course!), even if it would later get better naturally.
So yeah, enough of my type spilled for awhile on this one. I hope to hear more people's opinions, especially curious for the dev team, who I've noticed have kept unusually silent since I started posting on the thread (is that a good or bad sign?).
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote UpYeah. It'd be interesting to hear from the PCH crew.
Personally I'm still thinking that many of the problems mentioned will be minimized with enough users. Additionally, the balance of subscribers to non subscribers right now is probably weighted far greater towards subscribed than non just because we will have a bunch of Kickstarter backers and people who have been given friend-codes by those backers. I would expect that to drastically change once this thing really takes off.
Now it could be that these issues may still be a problem later (and even if they aren't I think the conversation has value in it's own right. Being aware of potential problems is never a bad thing.) but right now, I don't think we can really make any definitive statement about how broken or not the voting is. Certainly, changing it before it has really been used 'properly' seems a little rash.
I did find it interesting that you brought up the concept of trying to vote for 'what is best' for PCH. I admit that I started off with the same thought. I quickly gave up on the idea though. Aside from the fact that my idea of 'best' probably differs greatly to other people, it simply doesn't work when you have any kind of voting. With enough voters you won't get what is 'best', you'll get what is 'popular'. (Or indeed, what was pushed through.) I expect we will inevitably get memes winning votes simply because they capture the attention right now. People will then just complain later (probably on this forum) if it turns out to have been a bad idea.
The cynic in me really wants to make a political analogy! :D
The bottom line though is that I put my trust in Schell Games when they created the Kickstarter campaign and now that we are seeing the fruits of that, I trust that they'll create a site that will encourage people to participate rather than alienating them. Even if something insane DOES get voted in. They still have full creative control over the episode and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to make it work.
- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up- Spam
- Abuse
0 • Vote Down Vote Up