The String Quartet Game (Round Two)

[Sergeant Rock]

If I had noticed that Ligeti was so close I might have voted for him in the hope of sinking Haydn (sorry Gurn).

You would have wanted to sink my favorite Haydn quartet? Thanks a lot, dude!!! 

Sarge

[Baron Scarpia]

Run out of ordnance for you bazooka, Sarge?

[Sergeant Rock]

Run out of ordnance for you bazooka, Sarge?

I'm becoming a pacifist in my old age.

Sarge

[Sammy]

For me it's more that I don't vote for the "old masters" because I know everyone else will. They're secure. I'm convinced we will see a Haydn quartet advance in each of these primary rounds, and Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert etc. are pretty much guaranteed to go through with multiple entries also. Whether I think it's wonderful music or not (and by and large I do) I'd rather go to bat for stuff I love that also needs help.

That is an excellent strategy that I often use.  In one particular game, I never voted for my favorite work because of all the votes it was collecting.

[Sammy]

You and San Antone suddenly shifted your voting patterns at the last second to ensure its defeat.

Neither of you had voted for Schubert, Dvorak, or Haydn until the last votes when you pushed them above Ligeti.

And there's nothing wrong with that - I call it game strategy.

[Sammy]

If you should apologize for anything, it would be for accusing me of purposely denying Ligeti a spot among the final three. 

As I have said I was ignoring Ligeti, did not know how close he was to 100 and did not vote for Schubert and Haydn instead of Ligeti (I forgot he was even there), but because I like those works and knew Weinberg, Arensky and Shostakovich were not going to make it, and wanted to advance those works that I liked the best to the final round.

Sounds like a good strategy to me.

[Baron Scarpia]

And there's nothing wrong with that - I call it game strategy.

Start the next round! Mozart better win this one or I'm reporting you to the United Nations for crimes against humanity!

[Mahlerian]

But seriously, I feel your pain. My favorite Beethoven Quartet (op.135) didn't make it either. I can't believe it! Muss es sein? Yeah, es muss sein 

Sarge

For what it's worth, the Beethoven would have been in my own top 3 choices (with Ligeti and Janacek), despite my giving Takemitsu more points.  I had also expected it to do better.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I feel like if anyone is at fault for giving the opportunity for Ligeti to miss the top spot it would be me when I last-minute voted for Schubert to bump him up into the 90s. Otherwise Ligeti would have been closer to the top and Baron Scarpia would have probably said something like 'looks like this is where votes are going' and pushed Ligeti up to 100 along with the two quartets that were ahead of Ligeti.

Honestly, I love Schubert's string quartets and I was happy to support one of them even just a little. I did that also because I thought a closer game would have been a more exciting game no matter who the outcome. Because of that, ther was no clear top 3 or top 4 as they were often neck and neck, overtaking each other by only a few points.

[Ken B]

For me it's more that I don't vote for the "old masters" because I know everyone else will. They're secure. I'm convinced we will see a Haydn quartet advance in each of these primary rounds, and Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert etc. are pretty much guaranteed to go through with multiple entries also. Whether I think it's wonderful music or not (and by and large I do) I'd rather go to bat for stuff I love that also needs help.

Let me get this straight. You vote for the moderns as a policy not as a matter of your musical judgment. Then you complain others (you imagine) are voting for older composers as a policy.

[Ken B]

You and San Antone suddenly shifted your voting patterns at the last second to ensure its defeat.

Neither of you had voted for Schubert, Dvorak, or Haydn until the last votes when you pushed them above Ligeti.

Jibbers crabst. You are limited in what you can vote for. So you might vote for one Quartet today and another tomorrow. I did that on the innovative thread, voting eventually for all of the top 4 but mostly for Monteverdi. As that reflects my judgment.

[Ken B]

I'm becoming a pacifist in my old age.

Sarge

Szell sucks ass!

[Sammy]

We are getting hung up on voter motivation; that's a bad thing for my games.

Voter motivation is nobody's business except for the person casting his/her particular votes!!!!

I only concern myself with my own motivation.  I don't care what yours might be; I just want you to cast votes however you like as long as you adhere to the voting rules.

While we are on the subject of motivation, these are usually my reasons for voting as I do:

1.  I vote for my favored entries (especially in the early stages of a game).

2.  When it becomes clear to me that a favored entry will not receive sufficient votes, I move on to the next best entry which has some legs.

3.  My main goal is to maximize my influence on game outcomes, and that might well include a strategy to deny an entry I don't care advancement to the final round.

4.  I like to strike at the right time.  It's a great feeling to end a game by voting my favorite entry into the winner's position while also making sure that a not-liked entry doesn't move forward.

5.  As the game-runner, I sometimes vote purposely to tighten a game and make it more competitive/interesting. 

6.  There are times when I vote for low-point entries before half-time to insure that I don't end up with an excessive number of drop-outs.  In one game, there were likely to be 6 ties toward the bottom of the board.  I waited for the right moment, put one entry into the 50 points region and gave votes to 3 losers to insure a decent number of entries continuing in the game.

My point is that we are playing a game, not merely giving votes to favorites.  Games involve strategies; otherwise, you might as well just have a poll, make your votes and move on to other subjects - one and done.  In a game, I get to vote every day and the numbers I'm looking at are never the same.

[Crudblud]

Let me get this straight. You vote for the moderns as a policy not as a matter of your musical judgment. Then you complain others (you imagine) are voting for older composers as a policy.

Who's complaining? I'm talking about strategy. It is a game, you know...

[kyjo]

Man, you guys are a tough crowd Over at TalkClassical there's hardly any of this bickering involving the games (which is why I spend most of my time there nowadays)...