[Bulldog]

I think it's been a long time since I started a thread of this type. It has significance in that I'm interested in hearing from TC voters concerning any recommendations they might have that would result in game improvements.

My personal assessment is that all is well. The number of voters certainly increased during the pandemic and has surprisingly not declined in the past couple of months. As for proper voting, there are some exceptions, but most of the time it's done accurately. Being human, I sure make my share of mistakes; most recent was my finding a work of Searle twice on the board because I failed to delete one of them when I was updating.

My only regret is that my fellow game manager, Art Rock, has to deal with some votes of 5 or 6 points when his maximum is 4 points. I am willing to reduce to a maximum of 5 points if Rock Art is willing to increase to 5 points. It's not something I want to do, but this move toward uniformity might be a good idea overall.

Anyways, I would like to hear your comments/recommendations. I will give every recommendation serious consideration, even when my initial internal response is "no way".

The floor is yours.

 

[Art Rock]

I would not worry too much about the difference in scoring. In my games it gets posted in every post, and I find that mistakes only happen once or twice a game (I made one myself in my own game not so long ago) - easily corrected.

I echo the good participation in the games, that's a pleasant surprise that it stays at a high level, or even increases. It's also good to see players suggest suitable topics, even if most of them are reluctant to actually run a game themselves.

But like Bulldog, I'm open for any suggestions for improvement.

 

[Bulldog]

I would not worry too much about the difference in scoring. In my games it gets posted in every post, and I find that mistakes only happen once or twice a game (I made one myself in my own game not so long ago) - easily corrected.

I echo the good participation in the games, that's a pleasant surprise that it stays at a high level, or even increases. It's also good to see players suggest suitable topics, even if most of them are reluctant to actually run a game themselves.

But like Bulldog, I'm open for any suggestions for improvement.

I'm good with everything you said.

The reluctance for others to run games likely has much to do with the need to monitor the games multiple times every day. Many folks just don't have the available time to do so. However, I do recommend that voters take a stab at it if only to see what's involved.

I recall a member who started a game where the voting was only once per week. It was a poor game, but I have the feeling that the particular member realized that "once per day" was too much of a chore.

 

[SanAntone]

I would not worry too much about the difference in scoring. In my games it gets posted in every post, and I find that mistakes only happen once or twice a game (I made one myself in my own game not so long ago) - easily corrected.

I echo the good participation in the games, that's a pleasant surprise that it stays at a high level, or even increases. It's also good to see players suggest suitable topics, even if most of them are reluctant to actually run a game themselves.

But like Bulldog, I'm open for any suggestions for improvement.

Not to quibble, but I too would prefer uniform voting. Other than that, I find the games one of the most enjoyable aspects of TC membership and hope they continue to attract more participation or at least remain where its at.

 

[advokat]

I actually like the difference in scoring, although have made a mistake once. A question - is there a single place where one might consult the historic results of all the games? I am newish to the forum, and may have missed it.

 

[Highwayman]

I don`t have a problem with uniformity as long as the games with less conventional forms remind us of the voting rules by indicating them on the board as AR does. My only suggestion would be for having longer nomination periods. I usually have much more works to nominate but the game-runner often calls time prematurely for my liking. But I`m perfectly aware that my suggestion might not be viable if I`m the only participant who wants to extend the nomination process.

 

[Bulldog]

I actually like the difference in scoring, although have made a mistake once. A question - is there a single place where one might consult the historic results of all the games? I am newish to the forum, and may have missed it.

No, there is no single place to see the historic results. The best we have is the classical polls/games subforum to look at the history. I've run several hundred games and it just isn't viable to try wrap it all up in a single source.

 

[Nereffid]

A question - is there a single place where one might consult the historic results of all the games? I am newish to the forum, and may have missed it.

It might be feasible to make a continually updated sticky thread with links, as is the case with the Composer Guestbooks subforum. Don't know if anyone's keen to collate everything that's been done already though. But it would be a nice little resource that could encourage further listening/exploration even for those who don't participate in the games.

 

[Art Rock]

It would be a lot of work. We're talking days rather than hours. I would not want to do it for my own games, and I think Bulldog has probably run 50 times as many as I have.

 

[Bulldog]

I don`t have a problem with uniformity as long as the games with less conventional forms remind us of the voting rules by indicating them on the board as AR does. My only suggestion would be for having longer nomination periods. I usually have much more works to nominate but the game-runner often calls time prematurely for my liking. But I`m perfectly aware that my suggestion might not be viable if I`m the only participant who wants to extend the nomination process.

Well, I've recently run games with 240 works, 300 works, and even 400 works. When I notice that the nomination frequency is declining and the works are becoming increasingly obscure, I feel it's time to start the game. Well, there is more. Accounting for the total nominations becomes more of a chore for me as the numbers increase. Also, after a few days, I get quite the itch to run the game. The fact is that I much prefer the voting process to the nominations.

However, I hear what you're saying and understand your position. Big numbers are not bad, and I'll try to keep that in mind.

 

[SanAntone]

It might be feasible to make a continually updated sticky thread with links, as is the case with the Composer Guestbooks subforum. Don't know if anyone's keen to collate everything that's been done already though. But it would be a nice little resource that could encourage further listening/exploration even for those who don't participate in the games.

Initially, finding the final results might be very time consuming.

 

[Bulldog]

It might be feasible to make a continually updated sticky thread with links, as is the case with the Composer Guestbooks subforum. Don't know if anyone's keen to collate everything that's been done already though. But it would be a nice little resource that could encourage further listening/exploration even for those who don't participate in the games.

I'm not keen on it - would be a nightmare. Also, when I'm done with a game, it's ancient history for me.

 

[Art Rock]

My only suggestion would be for having longer nomination periods. I usually have much more works to nominate but the game-runner often calls time prematurely for my liking. But I`m perfectly aware that my suggestion might not be viable if I`m the only participant who wants to extend the nomination process.

Like Bulldog, I've run games with hundreds of compositions. The problem with that is twofold - the game itself takes forever to finish (I think one of them lasted almost half a year), and a large part of the nominations did not get any or hardly any points once they were in the game, because they were so obscure. For my latest games I have set 80 as a reasonable compromise for topics that are somewhat limited in scope (not something like favourite symphonies - you need to go wild there). However, if the players feel that this is not enough I'm willing to reconsider.

 

[Bulldog]

Any suggestions concerning number of works in a round? Do you like 10? 20? Would you prefer a larger or smaller number?

 

[allaroundmusicenthusiast]

I have no problem with the differences in scoring between games, I've made mistakes at first, but now I think I've got it -mostly- covered. Something that interested me was that in the recent Dutilleux/Ginastera/Lutoslawski/Hovhaness game the limit was 5 points and we had 13 points in total to give. That's also a good thing I find with Art Rock's games, I always have an extra 2 to give after I've already selected my two favorites. Perhaps this is only me, but with the 6-4 system, I almost always just vote for two works.

I also wonder if there's a way to open up things a bit more while voting. I know it's allowed to post links, but are we just voting for our favorites before the game or do people also listen to the works they don't know and then vote?

EDIT: I know people have busy schedules, I do too, and furthermore I plan what I'm going to listen to well ahead, so I don't always have time to listen to the nominations that I'm not familiar with. It's just a thought I guess. I feel these games work more as recommendations after they're over, or after each round. But maybe something could be done to encourage prior listening?

 

[Art Rock]

Any suggestions concerning number of works in a round? Do you like 10? 20? Would you prefer a larger or smaller number?

As a player, I think at least 10, at most 20. As a game runner, to keep things manageable, the same numbers.

For games with many obscure compositions, I would prefer to go to the lower end of the scale, to have more time to listen to them.

 

[Art Rock]

I also wonder if there's a way to open up things a bit more while voting. I know it's allowed to post links, but are we just voting for our favorites before the game or do people also listen to the works they don't know and then vote?

For a while I experimented with a 24 hours period after posting a round before voting started - giving the players a chance to make a case for the ones they feel passionate about (linking to videos, posting information). I liked the idea (obviously or I would not have done it), but I found that only very few players used it - most of them were just waiting for the game to start. So I stopped it after a while.

As a player, I usually know about half of the entries in a round. If a work that I don't know gathers a substantial number of points during the game, I tend to check it out. I simply do not have the time to listen to each entry.

 

[advokat]

20 with half-time adjustments are those that I enjoy most.

 

[advokat]

For a while I experimented with a 24 hours period after posting a round before voting started - giving the players a chance to make a case for the ones they feel passionate about (linking to videos, posting information). I liked the idea (obviously or I would not have done it), but I found that only very few players used it - most of them were just waiting for the game to start. So I stopped it after a while.

As a player, I usually know about half of the entries in a round. If a work that I don't know gathers a substantial number of points during the game, I tend to check it out. I simply do not have the time to listen to each entry.

I would not bother to check all the links that people might care to post. If I am interested in an unknown work, I will find it myself. I have checked out several entries that players seemed to care about most, and at least in one case ordered the piece from Amazon at once. The unknown pieces are almost all from modern works, about which I am highly suspicious, and, for me, that was a good way to explore the period.

 

[Dorsetmike]

Might it be an idea to limit the number of initial nominations to say 2 or 3 a day but to include a link to the work, either Youtube or other source. That way hopefully more players would have time to hear the works or a significant part thereof.I have noticed that some of the less well known works get numerous "likes" when Youtube links are posted yet when nominated in a game get few if any votes (other than my own!)