Interactive Composer Game (Voting Thread)

[San Antone]

Don't forget that all of us determined the list of 30 composers.  The only thing I did on my own was to set up the infrastructure.

My only complaint is how you jumped to end the game by voting for Haydn, when all your other votes were for Bach and Mahler.  I am sure someone would have eventually voted for Haydn but in the meantime Debussy might have gotten in instead of Ravel.

But this is all senseless quibbling by me.      It was a fun game and even though I would have preferred a slightly differnt outcome, the list is certainly representative of the taste among the members of this forum.

[North Star]

My only complaint is how you jumped to end the game by voting for Haydn, when all your other votes were for Bach and Mahler.  I am sure someone would have eventually voted for Haydn but in the meantime Debussy might have gotten in instead of Ravel.

But this is all senseless quibbling by me.      It was a fun game and even though I would have preferred a slightly differnt outcome, the list is certainly representative of the taste among the members of this forum.

Sammy's other votes changed nothing in the rankings. If he hadn't voted, someone else might have voted but possibly not to get Debussy (if not anyone else either as others seem to have been too far) there.

[San Antone]

Sammy's other votes changed nothing in the rankings. If he hadn't voted, someone else might have voted but possibly not to get Debussy there.

I was going to vote for Debussy when I noticed that the game ended just about 30 minutes prior to my visit.

As I said, NO BIGGIE!

[Baron Scarpia]

My only complaint is how you jumped to end the game by voting for Haydn, when all your other votes were for Bach and Mahler.  I am sure someone would have eventually voted for Haydn but in the meantime Debussy might have gotten in instead of Ravel.

Well, you could argue he gamed the system, but it is a game. It says so in the title.  0:)

[André]

I wish I could have voted when I got up today, but Yurp was already at work and trumped Murica  .

[Sammy]

My only complaint is how you jumped to end the game by voting for Haydn, when all your other votes were for Bach and Mahler.  I am sure someone would have eventually voted for Haydn but in the meantime Debussy might have gotten in instead of Ravel.

I did it all for Bach, wanting to throw another 5 points his way as the game ended.  I did the best I could for my main man by using the strategy that would give him the highest ranking possible.
Essentially, I made sure that there was no "meantime".  I'm not one of the brightest bulbs on the street, but I know how to play a game and maximize my influence over the desired outcomes.

I trust that none of you simply vote for your favored entries and leave it at that.  Strategy makes playing these games much more interesting.

[San Antone]

I did it all for Bach, wanting to throw another 5 points his way as the game ended.  I did the best I could for my main man by using the strategy that would give him the highest ranking possible.
Essentially, I made sure that there was no "meantime".  I'm not one of the brightest bulbs on the street, but I know how to play a game and maximize my influence over the desired outcomes.

I trust that none of you simply vote for your favored entries and leave it at that.  Strategy makes playing these games much more interesting.

Fair enough.  I am really looking forward to the new choral game.

[Sammy]

Fair enough.  I am really looking forward to the new choral game.

I hope the new game is as successful as the previous two.  Some folks don't want to hear voices in their music.

[André]

Where's the new game ?

[Sammy]

Where's the new game ?

It's in the Polling Station.  Can't you see it?

[Florestan]

I trust that none of you simply vote for your favored entries and leave it at that.  Strategy makes playing these games much more interesting.

Mine was simple. My 3 current favorites are Mozart, Schubert, Chopin. It was clear from the outset that the latter two have no chance, since Early and Middle Romanticism seem to be the least favorite periods for a lot of GMGers. I thought --- wrongly --- that Beethoven can take care of himself. It pained me to forsake Schubert and Chopin (or Brahms and Dvorak, for that matter) but on the other hand I could not have stomached another victory for the Mahler-Bruckner-Wagner ticket so I had to concentrate my votes on the guy with real potential (Mozart) and pick among the others another one in the same vein (Haydn). All in all, I am very pleased with the outcome: for the first time in living memory the Doom & Gloom Brigade is defeated. 

[Wanderer]

I trust that none of you simply vote for your favored entries and leave it at that.  Strategy makes playing these games much more interesting.

I disagree. "Strategy" makes "playing" these "games" much more dishonest. "Simply vote for your favoured entries and leave it at that" should actually be the modus operandi for the results to be genuine and truly representative of musical taste rather than manipulation.

[Baron Scarpia]

I disagree. "Strategy" makes "playing" these "games" much more dishonest. "Simply vote for your favoured entries and leave it at that" should actually be the modus operandi for the results to be genuine and truly representative of musical taste rather than manipulation.

It's a game, not a poll.

[Sammy]

I disagree. "Strategy" makes "playing" these "games" much more dishonest. "Simply vote for your favoured entries and leave it at that" should actually be the modus operandi for the results to be genuine and truly representative of musical taste rather than manipulation.

A dissent from a non-voter.  It's just as well you don't play the game - game spirit seems to elude you.  Winning while having fun is what it's all about.  Your preference only makes sense for polls, and I don't do polls.

Anti-gamers like to cast shade, but it's much better to cast votes.

[Crudblud]

I feel like it would have been a much closer competition if we'd had a lower maximum award, say three points instead of five, being forced to diversify more per round of voting. It doesn't really matter, but the way everything quickly skewed in extreme favour of one or two composers on the basis of a couple of people routinely giving out fives made it less exciting in my opinion. I should mention that I've never played one of these before, so "less exciting" is relative to how I imagine a closer race would've been.

[Sammy]

I feel like it would have been a much closer competition if we'd had a lower maximum award, say three points instead of five, being forced to diversify more per round of voting. It doesn't really matter, but the way everything quickly skewed in extreme favour of one or two composers on the basis of a couple of people routinely giving out fives made it less exciting in my opinion. I should mention that I've never played one of these before, so "less exciting" is relative to how I imagine a closer race would've been.

I understand your position and even have a close friend who runs games with 3 points being the max; I've also used 3.  However, let's look at this particular game.  Mahler was running away from the others, then Haydn caught him and shot ahead.  Many of the other composers were very close to one another in the voting.  I'm well satisfied.  As for diversity, you can't get more diverse than being able to use your 10 points however you want (except for the 5 point restriction). 

[Baron Scarpia]

It strikes me that tightening the restriction on voting is just going to make the game slower, since participants will be forced to dilute their preferences and strategies. I wonder if the game might be more dramatic with no restriction. Probably it's been tried and restrictions are in place for good reason.

Sammy's game, Sammy's rules, of course.

[Sammy]

I feel that the 5 point max. is a fine compromise between a 1 and 10 point max.

One other thing.  I'm not a dilution type of person; "concentrated" fits in well with my personality.

[Gurn Blanston]

Don't forget that all of us determined the list of 30 composers.  The only thing I did on my own was to set up the infrastructure.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean the 'contestants', I meant how to divide up our points to achieve maximum effect with them. You're right, we put the choices there. Y'all may recall I made a crack about Beethoven being late to the game, and he was also underrated in the results. Should he have been Top 5 material? I think so, but like many others, I didn't vote for him because I figured everyone else would.

[Sammy]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean the 'contestants', I meant how to divide up our points to achieve maximum effect with them. You're right, we put the choices there. Y'all may recall I made a crack about Beethoven being late to the game, and he was also underrated in the results. Should he have been Top 5 material? I think so, but like many others, I didn't vote for him because I figured everyone else would.

In the games I've run, Beethoven doesn't tend to do very well.  Sometimes, a work of his has trouble making it past half-time.  Put another way, when Moeran beats out Beethoven, you know there's some emotional stuff going on.