Shmup of the Month Club Polling

[dsheinem]

that's not how I chose to vote last year, tough, and I doubt many did...

really? You doubt people voted for games that they already know and like over games that were unfamiliar with?

yeah, i think some of that took place but in many cases we researched options and made selections based on what looked interesting, not past experience.

[EllertMichael]

^hey, dsh! those aren't my words!

I tried to go a little "off the beaten path" with my votes last year but it didn't matter much. I believe besides Zanac Neo none of the games I voted my 3 points for got picked. most people will gravitate to what they are familiar with, while others might campaign for votes all the meanwhile these awesome games way under the radar aren't getting the attention they deserve. I just think noise's method of game selection this year could garner a few hidden gems and make discussion more interesting

[pierrot]

I think there are really valid points on all sides of the discussion. It seem to me that dsh and others are in favor of last year's voting method in order to give everyone a schedule that they're more interested in, for each month; while noise, et al, are in favor of giving the regulars the reigns in order to make it more interesting (/put people through hell) while giving greater emphasis to games that wouldn't otherwise make it in for lack of widespread appeal.

Personally, I voted for dunpeal's idea because I like both ideas that I mentioned above, and I think dunpeal's suggestion would be the best way for games with less notoriety to make it into the list, while also giving everyone the opportunity to make each month more appealing to himself/the community.

[mjmjr25]

The "problem" (and of course it isn't a real problem) with having everyone vote is the folks we know will be active are left at the whim of people who likely won't even play.

Go back and look at the votes and suggestions from last year. A great many folks did not participate in playing yet they participated in the voting. To me, that was a "flaw" in our club. This year is a chance to correct that "flaw".

Again, we all know these are first world prollems, but I think it holds weight that people we know will actually discuss strategy and participate should have more say than someone who might only participate in the voting and then disappear. Again, we already have past experience, so to me it's pretty simple, Pavlov.

[dsheinem]

The "problem" (and of course it isn't a real problem) with having everyone vote is the folks we know will be active are left at the whim of people who likely won't even play.

Go back and look at the votes and suggestions from last year. A great many folks did not participate in playing yet they participated in the voting. To me, that was a "flaw" in our club. This year is a chance to correct that "flaw".

Again, we all know these are first world prollems, but I think it holds weight that people we know will actually discuss strategy and participate should have more say than someone who might only participate in the voting and then disappear. Again, we already have past experience, so to me it's pretty simple, Pavlov.

As I recall Pavlov had to ring the bell more than once before the dog was trained...

There's no way of knowing why some people who voted went away, but it could be due to lack of interest in the titles that won, even while those same titles likely attracted some of the people that became regular players.

[jepjepjep]

If the only difference is that dunpeal's method has the regular pick three to vote on, what if you give the regular the right to limit the voting. If they feel very strongly about a single game, then they have the right to choose that one. If they feel like leaving two or three games open to voting, then we choose the most popular.

[noiseredux]

There's no way of knowing why some people who voted went away, but it could be due to lack of interest in the titles that won, even while those same titles likely attracted some of the people that became regular players.

so you agree that letting a bunch of dudes vote won't necessarily keep them interested then?

[mjmjr25]

As I recall Pavlov had to ring the bell more than once before the dog was trained...

Exactly.

[dsheinem]

As I recall Pavlov had to ring the bell more than once before the dog was trained...

Exactly.

in other words I don't think that simply ONE year of voting in which some people didn't participate afterwards demonstrates evidence of a "flaw" in the system.

In fact, I'd guess that imposition of games by a committee will result in fewer new participants and even the general falling off in participation by some of those in the existing suggested committees.

[mjmjr25]

In fact, I'd guess that imposition of games by a committee will result in fewer new participants and even the general falling off in participation by some of those in the existing suggested committees.

STGT hasn't suffered and not everyone gets a vote (prior to this year) and this year they had the largest turnout yet (and those folks signed up before they knew it would be a team vote process this year.)

At the end of the day, it's a Club, no? So we discuss like a club. And we are not saying "member's only"--- and as we saw, 1/2 our active members joined in AFTER the titles were chosen. Chosen that is by many people who DIDN'T participate. I don't see how you can support your statement with these truths.