Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[-Stef-]

I've set the poll for two votes per user, and you can still change your vote later on.
Please feel free to post any reasons why you think your selection is best.
I intertwined these two votes (sizes & relegation matches), because I feel they're strongly related.

Just for clarity:
* Division sizes will impact the duration of each season. A season will take approximately 1 week * number of opponents + 30%.
* Division sizes will have no impact on the maximum number of players that can play. That is limitless in either way.

Small (6 players), no relegation matches
#1 promotes, #5 & #6 demote.

Medium (8 players), no relegation matches
#1 promotes, #7 & #8 demote.

Medium (8 players), with relegation matches
#1 promotes, #2 could promote, #5 & #6 could demote, #7 & #8 demote.

Large (14 players), no relegation matches
#1 & #2 promote, #11 - #14 demote.

Large (14 players), with relegation matches
#1 & #2 promote, #3 & #4 could promote, #7-#10 could demote, #11-#14 demote.

[hvb]

Maybe its worth consideration to play with play-offs instead of relegation. In a 8 player group it could look like that:


1. - 4. play for 1 slot to go up in a final four:    semis 1. vs. 4. and 2. vs. 3. + final. a 3-3 draw could count as win for the higher seeded
                                                                    winner goes up. all other 3 stay in the league

5. - 8. play for 1 slot to stay in the league:       semis 5. vs. 8. and 6. vs. 7.  a 3-3 draw could count as win for the higher seeded
                                                                     the 2 winners stay in the league. the 2 defeated demote

the advantage would be that everybody is motivated till the end in group stage, so noone is induced to play bad cause he cant go up anymore or goes down anyway. i see the threat that if #1 promotes and # 7+8 demote, a lot of players play their last matches "for nothing", especially if you count every game as 1 point and not every match . So there will be regulary situtions that are neither nice for that players, nor for the others, who fight for the first or 6th place.   

that play-offs would be thrilling for everyone, cause everyone takes part. and due to the modus it gives an advantage to the players that perform better during the group stage.

[Kirian]

IMO, relegation matches destroy half the impetus for the league style setup, i.e., not having to schedule your matches in a specific week-long timeframe.

[soulnet]

IMO, relegation matches destroy half the impetus for the league style setup, i.e., not having to schedule your matches in a specific week-long timeframe.

This was mentioned in the original thread on this, as well as other considerations for and against relegation matches. Stef, maybe it would be worth it to gather them in the OP to avoid people reposting them to influence votes? I mean, is good that people voting gets to see arguments, is bad that we have to repost everything and possibly have some extra discussion and repetition.

[Axxle]

IMO, relegation matches destroy half the impetus for the league style setup, i.e., not having to schedule your matches in a specific week-long timeframe.

As long as you don't have regulation matches too often, it should be fine I think.

League of Legends LCS has an interesting way of doing divisions which might be worth a look: http://na.lolesports.com/na-lcs/2014/split1/about

8-team league
- play four matches against each other team.
- At the end of the regular season:
-- Top two teams earn a bye.
-- 3rd through 6th play wildcard round.
--- Losers play in a 5th-place match. The loser of the 5th-place match drops to relegation matches.
-- 7th, 8th also go to regulation match.
---Three challenger teams attempt to knock them out of the LCS in the Promotion Tournament.

[-Stef-]

20-20-20 with 5 days to go... exciting this close.

Please vote if you haven't voted yet
(especially if you're going to vote for option 1 or 3)

[soulnet]

20-20-20 with 5 days to go... exciting this close.

Please vote if you haven't voted yet
(especially if you're going to vote for option 1 or 3)

Do you have access to who voted each option? I am thinking is possible (seeing that the partial votes were not always equal before) that some people voted just one of the first two options, while their main concern is not having relegation matches, which would give a majority against relegation matches. I am just stating that the main concern is that due to the largest amount of discussion on the subject in the original thread. It would also be possible that for some people the number of people is more important and they voted 2 AND 3, but that can also be checked by looking at the voters for the 3 majority options.

Even if the end votes end up with a 1/2 difference for some option, it would be sad to decide on such small difference. If my impression is correct, there may be a larger difference (also not too big) and then, if "no relegation matches" ends up winning, we could have a second round of voting for the number of players (since people that voted for relegation matches may have a preference there as well, is possible that we have a clearer winner).

[SCSN]

I have a slight preference for relegation matches because the more Dominion and the more tension the better, but in the end I don't care much. However, I do have a strong preference for leagues of at least 8 people. So far I only voted for "Medium size with relegation matches". Would also voting for "Medium size, no relegation matches" increase the chance of Medium size winning, i.e. how exactly are the votes going to be counted?

[Kirian]

20-20-20 with 5 days to go... exciting this close.

Please vote if you haven't voted yet
(especially if you're going to vote for option 1 or 3)

Do you have access to who voted each option? I am thinking is possible (seeing that the partial votes were not always equal before) that some people voted just one of the first two options, while their main concern is not having relegation matches, which would give a majority against relegation matches. I am just stating that the main concern is that due to the largest amount of discussion on the subject in the original thread. It would also be possible that for some people the number of people is more important and they voted 2 AND 3, but that can also be checked by looking at the voters for the 3 majority options.

Even if the end votes end up with a 1/2 difference for some option, it would be sad to decide on such small difference. If my impression is correct, there may be a larger difference (also not too big) and then, if "no relegation matches" ends up winning, we could have a second round of voting for the number of players (since people that voted for relegation matches may have a preference there as well, is possible that we have a clearer winner).

The poll is public, so we all have access to who voted for what.  Going through various things:

46 total people have voted.  Among them, 16 voted just once, and 28 voted twice, for 74 total votes.

Among those who voted twice:

10 voted 1/2, expressing a preference for no relegation matches and wanting small or medium.
9 voted 2/3, expressing a preference for Medium specifically with no opinion on relegation matches.
3 voted 1/3, expressing presumably a preference for relegation matches but wanting small or medium.
4 voted 2/4, expressing a preference for no relegation matches and wanting medium or large.
1 voted 4/5, expressing preference for large but no preference on relegation.
1 voted 3/5, expressing a preference for relegation matches and wanting medium or large.


Among the single votes, 8 voted for 1, 9 voted for 3, and only one vote for 4.

So if we break those out, we get:

Large only (4, 5): 2
Med or Large (2, 3 AND 4, 5): 5
Med only (2, 3): 18
Small or Med (1 AND 2, 3): 13
Small only (1): 8

So 36 are good with Medium, 21 are good with Small, and 7 are good with Large.

Relegation (3 and/or 5): 13
No Relegation:  22
No Preference:  10

So 23 are cool with relegation, and 32 are good without it.

I think there's an obvious "real" preference for Medium with no relegation.

[soulnet]

I have a slight preference for relegation matches because the more Dominion and the more tension the better, but in the end I don't care much. However, I do have a strong preference for leagues of at least 8 people. So far I only voted for "Medium size with relegation matches". Would also voting for "Medium size, no relegation matches" increase the chance of Medium size winning, i.e. how exactly are the votes going to be counted?

I don't think the "more Dominion" applies, as this is likely to mantain the average of 1 match per week, or even decrease it due to the need of some extra days to provide the flexibility required for scheduling single matches instead of many matches together.

I agree with the increased tension, however, I think that for a continuously run league, the simpleness on participation (given by the flexible scheduling of matches) is essential, as constant dropouts can really hurt a smooth running (even if we have rules to deal with them properly).

However, I think a continuously run league can give as subproducts non-open tournaments like invitationals or even seeded tournaments, which could have the intensity you mention for relegation matches without hurting the "main" league by being non-mandatory.

[yed]

20-20-20 with 5 days to go... exciting this close.

Please vote if you haven't voted yet
(especially if you're going to vote for option 1 or 3)

Do you have access to who voted each option? I am thinking is possible (seeing that the partial votes were not always equal before) that some people voted just one of the first two options, while their main concern is not having relegation matches, which would give a majority against relegation matches. I am just stating that the main concern is that due to the largest amount of discussion on the subject in the original thread. It would also be possible that for some people the number of people is more important and they voted 2 AND 3, but that can also be checked by looking at the voters for the 3 majority options.

Even if the end votes end up with a 1/2 difference for some option, it would be sad to decide on such small difference. If my impression is correct, there may be a larger difference (also not too big) and then, if "no relegation matches" ends up winning, we could have a second round of voting for the number of players (since people that voted for relegation matches may have a preference there as well, is possible that we have a clearer winner).

The poll is public, so we all have access to who voted for what.  Going through various things:

46 total people have voted.  Among them, 16 voted just once, and 28 voted twice, for 74 total votes.

Among those who voted twice:

10 voted 1/2, expressing a preference for no relegation matches and wanting small or medium.
9 voted 2/3, expressing a preference for Medium specifically with no opinion on relegation matches.
3 voted 1/3, expressing presumably a preference for relegation matches but wanting small or medium.
4 voted 2/4, expressing a preference for no relegation matches and wanting medium or large.
1 voted 4/5, expressing preference for large but no preference on relegation.
1 voted 3/5, expressing a preference for relegation matches and wanting medium or large.


Among the single votes, 8 voted for 1, 9 voted for 3, and only one vote for 4.

So if we break those out, we get:

Large only (4, 5): 2
Med or Large (2, 3 AND 4, 5): 5
Med only (2, 3): 18
Small or Med (1 AND 2, 3): 13
Small only (1): 8

So 36 are good with Medium, 21 are good with Small, and 7 are good with Large.

Relegation (3 and/or 5): 13
No Relegation:  22
No Preference:  10

So 23 are cool with relegation, and 32 are good without it.

I think there's an obvious "real" preference for Medium with no relegation.

You can not break those out. If there is no relegation, I would vote only for small, but here you count me to medium too.

[SCSN]

I have a slight preference for relegation matches because the more Dominion and the more tension the better, but in the end I don't care much. However, I do have a strong preference for leagues of at least 8 people. So far I only voted for "Medium size with relegation matches". Would also voting for "Medium size, no relegation matches" increase the chance of Medium size winning, i.e. how exactly are the votes going to be counted?

I don't think the "more Dominion" applies, as this is likely to mantain the average of 1 match per week, or even decrease it due to the need of some extra days to provide the flexibility required for scheduling single matches instead of many matches together.

I agree with the increased tension, however, I think that for a continuously run league, the simpleness on participation (given by the flexible scheduling of matches) is essential, as constant dropouts can really hurt a smooth running (even if we have rules to deal with them properly).

However, I think a continuously run league can give as subproducts non-open tournaments like invitationals or even seeded tournaments, which could have the intensity you mention for relegation matches without hurting the "main" league by being non-mandatory.

I could give you more reasons for why I like what I like, but what it comes down to in the end is that it's just a matter of taste, and you can't argue someone into liking a food he happens to find disgusting.

[-Stef-]

Argh. This is actually quite hard.

There is some real "power" in being allowed to create the poll, and the some more in "interpreting the results". I guess that's why politics is such a mess.
I really want to select the structure that is preferred by the most people.

I like your attempt to break it down Kirian, but I also agree with yed that it leads to false conclusions.


How should we continue?
I'm currently leaning towards "Let's accept the conclusion of this poll as "no relegation matches, no large divisions" and then do another vote with only two options (1 & 2)."
However, I'm not certain at all and if someone says something that makes a lot of sense... that would be very welcome

[soulnet]

I could give you more reasons for why I like what I like, but what it comes down to in the end is that it's just a matter of taste, and you can't argue someone into liking a food he happens to find disgusting.

Well, some parts are a matter of taste and some others are arguments, and people do change their minds. But feel welcome to like whichever arrangement you want, of course. I will do the same.

I like your attempt to break it down Kirian, but I also agree with yed that it leads to false conclusions.

I find the breakdown quite reasonable, and of course yed and possibly others may be outliers, but odds are that those even out and end up being not terribly significant, and the conclusion has a reasonable margin.

I'm currently leaning towards "Let's accept the conclusion of this poll as "no relegation matches, no large divisions" and then do another vote with only two options (1 & 2)."

I don't have an issue with that, especially because there is plenty of time left, but I suspect medium will win because of Kirian's conclusions. However, even if the conclusions are reasonable, the number of votes is small enough for anything to happen.

In the meantime, I think voting the length of stop in between seasons and the length (nr of total games) of the matches should also be done. There was some discussion on the matter in the main thread.

[Kirian]

Argh. This is actually quite hard.

There is some real "power" in being allowed to create the poll, and the some more in "interpreting the results". I guess that's why politics is such a mess.
I really want to select the structure that is preferred by the most people.

I like your attempt to break it down Kirian, but I also agree with yed that it leads to false conclusions.


How should we continue?
I'm currently leaning towards "Let's accept the conclusion of this poll as "no relegation matches, no large divisions" and then do another vote with only two options (1 & 2)."
However, I'm not certain at all and if someone says something that makes a lot of sense... that would be very welcome

I don't think what I've done leads to false conclusions; while it's obviously prone to statistical anomalies, the only real anomaly is, well, you, yed, and the other person who voted 1/3, I'm not going to go look up who.  Every other double response (1/2, 2/3, 2/4, 3/5, 4/5) expresses an obvious opinion, which is "I care about size but not relegation" or vice versa.  The 1/3 vote, like the nonexistent 3/4 or 2/5 votes, expresses something either ambiguous or too specific to be polled readily.

This really would likely have been better run as two separate polls, one for size and one for relegations.  43 of the votes on those two polls can be predicted from the votes on this poll.  Three of the votes here... I guess wouldn't fit onto those two polls?  I guess I'd be interested to hear how the three of you would vote on two separate polls like that.

I can certainly see running a poll that is just "No relegations, should we go small or medium, or no preference" but if the same people vote, you're going to see a split of (approximately) 23 medium, 10 no preference, 11 small (presumably including the 1/3 voters from this poll), assuming the same people were to vote.  The two people who expressed a large-only preference may go to medium or to no preference, hard to tell for certain, but either way there's a quite obvious plurality.  I guess the single 3/5 voter might just sit the vote out, leaving 22/10/11.

[Mic Qsenoch]

I don't think your analysis works, Kirian, without some assumptions about how the voters thought the results of this poll were going to be used. I voted for 1/2 to express my desire for no relegation, but I would vote small only if I knew the relegation matches were definitely off the table. I have a preference between small and medium, but I have a stronger preference between relegation/no relegation.

[soulnet]

I don't think your analysis works, Kirian, without some assumptions about how the voters thought the results of this poll were going to be used. I voted for 1/2 to express my desire for no relegation, but I would vote small only if I knew the relegation matches were definitely off the table. I have a preference between small and medium, but I have a stronger preference between relegation/no relegation.

I don't think that means the analysis does not work, it just means deeper things can be extracted by requesting additional information (like you just provided) from the voters.

Any poll is guided from the question, and the election method will heavily influence the result. That is not Kirian's fault, I think his job is flawless given the available data. It would require ALL the voters of 1/2 to be more inclined to small to even out the preferences. It seems reasonable to me to skip the second poll, but as I said, I don't mind it at all.

Is important to notice that reasonable conclusion is different from flaw-proof conclusion. But polling will not give anything better than reasonable conclusions. More polls may increase the reasonability, and I think my argument here can be summarized as "it does not seem likely that a new poll will increase the reasonability of the conclusions by a big margin".

[Awaclus]

I don't think your analysis works, Kirian, without some assumptions about how the voters thought the results of this poll were going to be used. I voted for 1/2 to express my desire for no relegation, but I would vote small only if I knew the relegation matches were definitely off the table. I have a preference between small and medium, but I have a stronger preference between relegation/no relegation.

I agree.

[yed]

I have voted for 1 and 3 because I want more % of result places in league to change the league, so that there is something to fight for.

[Kirian]

I don't think your analysis works, Kirian, without some assumptions about how the voters thought the results of this poll were going to be used. I voted for 1/2 to express my desire for no relegation, but I would vote small only if I knew the relegation matches were definitely off the table. I have a preference between small and medium, but I have a stronger preference between relegation/no relegation.

Sure, and I voted 1/2 although given only two choices I probably would vote medium (I would vote no preference if that choice were available).  I suppose it's possible that every other 1/2 vote would go the direction you have indicated, which in a hypothetical poll with no "no preference" choice still leaves medium with 23 vs. small with 21, assuming the people who voted large-only don't come in to vote for medium.

Also, what soulnet says:  we can't get a perfect result from a poll.

I'm not saying "Don't do another poll," though.  I think another poll of the same voters is unlikely to reveal new information.  Whether or not all the same voters show up may cause changes, obviously.  I do strongly believe you should add a "no preference" option to the new poll, though.

[Kirian]

I have voted for 1 and 3 because I want more % of result places in league to change the league, so that there is something to fight for.

I can see that point of view and tend to agree.  If I were running this, I'd at least consider eight-player league where 1 and 2 promote, and 5-8 demote, to significantly increase churn.

[Mic Qsenoch]

I don't think your analysis works, Kirian, without some assumptions about how the voters thought the results of this poll were going to be used. I voted for 1/2 to express my desire for no relegation, but I would vote small only if I knew the relegation matches were definitely off the table. I have a preference between small and medium, but I have a stronger preference between relegation/no relegation.

I don't think that means the analysis does not work, it just means deeper things can be extracted by requesting additional information (like you just provided) from the voters.

Any poll is guided from the question, and the election method will heavily influence the result. That is not Kirian's fault, I think his job is flawless given the available data. It would require ALL the voters of 1/2 to be more inclined to small to even out the preferences. It seems reasonable to me to skip the second poll, but as I said, I don't mind it at all.

Is important to notice that reasonable conclusion is different from flaw-proof conclusion. But polling will not give anything better than reasonable conclusions. More polls may increase the reasonability, and I think my argument here can be summarized as "it does not seem likely that a new poll will increase the reasonability of the conclusions by a big margin".

The numbers make it likely that Kirian's prediction for the binary outcome of a medium/small poll will be correct, but the assertion that approximately 10 will have no preference is probably wrong. The assumption that spreading your vote between options that include both small/medium or both delegation/no delegation indicates a lack of preference on that issue is not reasonable. This assumption is something which Kirian asserted was "obvious", and I disagree. I would guess the number of people who would express no preference would be closer to 0.

I imagine you will also get more respondents to a poll which only has 3 options where the choices are more easily distinguished.

Sorry to be a pest. I'm sure you're right about the outcome, but if the numbers were different I think you could be quite easily wrong.

[Kirian]

I don't think your analysis works, Kirian, without some assumptions about how the voters thought the results of this poll were going to be used. I voted for 1/2 to express my desire for no relegation, but I would vote small only if I knew the relegation matches were definitely off the table. I have a preference between small and medium, but I have a stronger preference between relegation/no relegation.

I don't think that means the analysis does not work, it just means deeper things can be extracted by requesting additional information (like you just provided) from the voters.

Any poll is guided from the question, and the election method will heavily influence the result. That is not Kirian's fault, I think his job is flawless given the available data. It would require ALL the voters of 1/2 to be more inclined to small to even out the preferences. It seems reasonable to me to skip the second poll, but as I said, I don't mind it at all.

Is important to notice that reasonable conclusion is different from flaw-proof conclusion. But polling will not give anything better than reasonable conclusions. More polls may increase the reasonability, and I think my argument here can be summarized as "it does not seem likely that a new poll will increase the reasonability of the conclusions by a big margin".

The numbers make it likely that Kirian's prediction for the binary outcome of a medium/small poll will be correct, but the assertion that approximately 10 will have no preference is probably wrong. The assumption that spreading your vote between options that include both small/medium or both delegation/no delegation indicates a lack of preference on that issue is not reasonable. This assumption is something which Kirian asserted was "obvious", and I disagree. I would guess the number of people who would express no preference would be closer to 0.

I imagine you will also get more respondents to a poll which only has 3 options where the choices are more easily distinguished.

Sorry to be a pest. I'm sure you're right about the outcome, but if the numbers were different I think you could be quite easily wrong.

I agree that if the numbers were different the outcome would be different.  And I don't assert that mg assumption was obvious, but that the expressed preference was obvious--again, only for the voters in this poll.

From a statistical standpoint, there's no reason to believe that the no preference votes would split any way other than in half. Obviously there's now some margin for error, but that margin is literally +/-5.  At the extreme ends of the margin of error, we have 23-21 for medium at one end, and 31-13 for medium at the other end.

[Mic Qsenoch]

I agree that if the numbers were different the outcome would be different.  And I don't assert that mg assumption was obvious, but that the expressed preference was obvious--again, only for the voters in this poll.

My point isn't that "different number give different results", it's that your original analysis would give incorrect predictions with different numbers.

You say the votes indicate 'obvious opinion, which is "I care about size but not relegation" or vice versa.' My criticism is that the bolded part is not obvious or true.

From a statistical standpoint, there's no reason to believe that the no preference votes would split any way other than in half. Obviously there's now some margin for error, but that margin is literally +/-5.  At the extreme ends of the margin of error, we have 23-21 for medium at one end, and 31-13 for medium at the other end.

I wasn't claiming that the no preference votes would split one way or the other, I was claiming that most of them would split from no preference, even if the poll was small/med/no pref.

This last bit with 23-21 and 31-13 is what you needed to include in the first post to support your conclusion.

I don't know why I keep typing this stuff, sorry, I'll stop.

[florrat]

Argh. This is actually quite hard.

There is some real "power" in being allowed to create the poll, and the some more in "interpreting the results". I guess that's why politics is such a mess.
I really want to select the structure that is preferred by the most people.

I like your attempt to break it down Kirian, but I also agree with yed that it leads to false conclusions.

Yes, you definitely had some power when creating the poll, and also some when interpreting it. I think Kirian's interpretation is solid though, because the differences between medium (36) vs small (21) and no relegation (32) vs relegation (23) are so big.

If you like to know more about voting systems, check out this video for a better way to vote (the only disadvantage is that every voter has to rank the options from most preferred to least preferred, which is not really possible on this forum).

[WanderingWinder]

Argh. This is actually quite hard.

There is some real "power" in being allowed to create the poll, and the some more in "interpreting the results". I guess that's why politics is such a mess.
I really want to select the structure that is preferred by the most people.

I like your attempt to break it down Kirian, but I also agree with yed that it leads to false conclusions.

Yes, you definitely had some power when creating the poll, and also some when interpreting it. I think Kirian's interpretation is solid though, because the differences between medium (36) vs small (21) and no relegation (32) vs relegation (23) are so big.

If you like to know more about voting systems, check out this video for a better way to vote (the only disadvantage is that every voter has to rank the options from most preferred to least preferred, which is not really possible on this forum).

That's not the only disadvantage.... that system (like every other, if we want to be fair) has some serious problems.

[GeoLib]

Personally, I'm a fan of range voting (give each option a score from 0-9, highest average wins), which would be relatively easy to implement with the forum polling system.

Given that we're pretty sure that large is out of the picture, this could be done as four separate polls (small w/relegation, small w/out, medium with, medium w/out), each with 10 options (numbers 0-9). It would be trivial to calculate the average score for each option from these polls.

Obviously this can also be done over a range other than 0-9. Can you do separate polls on the same topic?

[soulnet]

Personally, I'm a fan of range voting (give each option a score from 0-9, highest average wins), which would be relatively easy to implement with the forum polling system.

You need to at least normalize the scores (divide the scores given by X by the sum of all scores given by X). And even then, I am not sure that represents anything. Theory of voting is hard.

[GeoLib]

Personally, I'm a fan of range voting (give each option a score from 0-9, highest average wins), which would be relatively easy to implement with the forum polling system.

You need to at least normalize the scores (divide the scores given by X by the sum of all scores given by X). And even then, I am not sure that represents anything. Theory of voting is hard.

No you don't (If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly). Your proposal of normalization means that each person has some amount of "vote" which they get to distribute amongst the various options. The point of range voting is that everyone ranks each option by how much they like it and we go with the one that has the highest average approval. It's like the approval voting as implemented in this poll except that there are more than just the binary options of approve and disapprove.

[soulnet]

Personally, I'm a fan of range voting (give each option a score from 0-9, highest average wins), which would be relatively easy to implement with the forum polling system.

You need to at least normalize the scores (divide the scores given by X by the sum of all scores given by X). And even then, I am not sure that represents anything. Theory of voting is hard.

No you don't (If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly). Your proposal of normalization means that each person has some amount of "vote" which they get to distribute amongst the various options. The point of range voting is that everyone ranks each option by how much they like it and we go with the one that has the highest average approval. It's like the approval voting as implemented in this poll except that there are more than just the binary options of approve and disapprove.

Suppose just 2 options. If you assign scores of 1 and 2 and I assign scores of 8 and 4, it basically means that we have opposite views. However, my vote influences the final result much more than yours. Even if you disagree with the model I propose, there are deeper problems: the incentive is not to give your honest opinion, for instance. E.g., if I prefer only slightly to have small groups, I might as well give scores far away from each other, such that my preference, thought not really strong, has strong influence on the outcome.

[GeoLib]

I agree that there's the potential for strategic voting, but your example doesn't really make any sense. Why would we ever use this system if there were only two options? Why would I give scores of 1 and 2? Why would you give scores of 8 and 4? None of these actions are logical.

Basically the idea is that everyone would give there most preferred option a 9, there least preferred a 0, and rank the other two somewhere in between based on how much they like them relative to the others.

[soulnet]

Basically the idea is that everyone would give there most preferred option a 9, there least preferred a 0, and rank the other two somewhere in between based on how much they like them relative to the others.

I just find no theory to support such system, and too complex not to offer theoretical guarantees. I prefer the simple voting or a complex system that guarantees no strategic voting is incentivized. I will stop arguing now, this is almost RSP material at this point.

[Voltaire]

At this point, I think an executive decision of something that's at least sorta-close to something that got a reasonable amount of votes is the best way to go. We could spend forever trying to find the exact consensus setup.

[-Stef-]

At this point, I think an executive decision of something that's at least sorta-close to something that got a reasonable amount of votes is the best way to go. We could spend forever trying to find the exact consensus setup.

Yes, I'll do that. Sorry I let it go for a few days but the last couple of days have been busy (Yesterday was my birthday )

My favorite option won the vote with 25-24-23, yet I'm going to disregard it. I think Kirian's point about the majority being against relegation matches does make sense, and it does indeed have some organisational problems we don't need. I guess I fail miserably as a dictator-pretending-to-be-a-democrat here.

I will set up a new vote between option 1 & 2, that will run for a week, and then I'll actually stick with the results, even when it's just a 1-vote-difference.
Signups will start at the moment Gokodom 3 moves into the knock-out phase.

...  If I were running this, I'd at least consider eight-player league where 1 and 2 promote, and 5-8 demote, to significantly increase churn.

No I'm sorry I really dislike this one, enough to not even want to vote on it. 4 people with unconditional demotion implies someone will know for sure he will demote 2-3 matches before the end. The remaining matches will still have a significant impact on others though, probably even on who ends up #1. Also because we don't count win-tie-loss, but the actual number of games won. Even when this player acts in good faith and plays on as good as he can, it's just a non-fun position to be in.

[Kirian]

...  If I were running this, I'd at least consider eight-player league where 1 and 2 promote, and 5-8 demote, to significantly increase churn.

No I'm sorry I really dislike this one, enough to not even want to vote on it. 4 people with unconditional demotion implies someone will know for sure he will demote 2-3 matches before the end. The remaining matches will still have a significant impact on others though, probably even on who ends up #1. Also because we don't count win-tie-loss, but the actual number of games won. Even when this player acts in good faith and plays on as good as he can, it's just a non-fun position to be in.

I hadn't thought of that, and you're totally right.

[soulnet]

...  If I were running this, I'd at least consider eight-player league where 1 and 2 promote, and 5-8 demote, to significantly increase churn.

No I'm sorry I really dislike this one, enough to not even want to vote on it. 4 people with unconditional demotion implies someone will know for sure he will demote 2-3 matches before the end. The remaining matches will still have a significant impact on others though, probably even on who ends up #1. Also because we don't count win-tie-loss, but the actual number of games won. Even when this player acts in good faith and plays on as good as he can, it's just a non-fun position to be in.

I hadn't thought of that, and you're totally right.

A good middle-ground could be deciding conditional demotion by some relative notion of the number of points obtained, instead of a direct match, which has additional complications. Something like, each #2 promotes, demoting a #5 or #6, if it obtains 2x or 3x or whatever proportion seems reasonable the number of points in the last season. Pair all #2s of the same level in decreasing order of points with #5s and $6s in the level above in increasing order of points.

If we end up with the medium size, this can even be introduced after some seasons.