Shmup of the Month Club Polling

[dsheinem]

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.

I don't like the comparisons to STGT as that's a shmup-focused forum

If, as has been suggested, committee members pick games because they are obscure/brutal/an area of specialty/etc, that could certainly drive away members. For example, last year much of the discussion surrounding votes had to do with availability of ports, ease of emulation, etc. - that's something important that gets lost with an imposition of picks. I don't KNOW that people would check out and/or that no one new would join in given the choices arrived at by any of the voting methodologies, but let's not pretend that any of the methodes are perfect or that certain ones are more flawed than another. There's drawbacks to each, all of which could potentially make the club worse.

My lobbying for the original method is that it produced a good year of games and participation and I don't see a serious flaw. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

[noiseredux]

If, as has been suggested, committee members pick games because they are obscure/brutal/an area of specialty/etc, that could certainly drive away members.

I've lobbied hard for quite the opposite. Not to pick anything because it's obscure, brutal or an area of specialty... but because each of us might pick something very diff from each other that is uniquely awesome.

[dsheinem]

If, as has been suggested, committee members pick games because they are obscure/brutal/an area of specialty/etc, that could certainly drive away members.

I've lobbied hard for quite the opposite. Not to pick anything because it's obscure, brutal or an area of specialty... but because each of us might pick something very diff from each other that is uniquely awesome.

Yeah, but if people don't want to spend $30-$40 for a copy of Crimzon Clover, which must be played on PC, they are SOL for the game I wanted to pick.

Maybe mjm picks Pink Sweets

Maybe fvgazi picks Ketsui

Maybe foxhound wants Harmful Park

Those are all fine, unique games. BUT - all are expensive, most are not available on many platforms, and not all are well emulated by most (if any) PCs.

Without a voting mechanism there's no community recourse to veto picks like this. They are all perfectly good picks that maybe we WOULDN'T veto, but last year we certainly made at least a few picks based on availability and the like...

[pierrot]

I suppose I'd hope that no one would choose something so singularly brutal or obscure as to scare off the majority of even the regulars, but suppose we gave someone (say, bruno) the authority to override a selection if it were deemed a deterrent from participation?

This is one reason I think that having a choice of three for each month, selected by a regular, would both give the regular a great deal of say in what is played for that month, while giving everyone the ultimate power of choice.

[dsheinem]

I suppose I'd hope that no one would choose something so singularly brutal or obscure as to scare off the majority of even the regulars, but suppose we gave someone (say, bruno) the authority to override a selection if it were deemed a deterrent from participation?

ah but what if we voted on and AGREED to want to play a roster like what I suggested? open voting for everything makes that a more likely scenario in my mind. i want to share power as much as possible here, not consolidate it.

again, i thought the system last year worked fine and have yet to see a compelling reason to change it...

[mjmjr25]

.... There's drawbacks to each, all of which could potentially make the club worse.

My lobbying for the original method is that it produced a good year of games and participation and I don't see a serious flaw. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

As successful and fun as SotM is and will continue to be, your comments act as though there is no room for improvement and the system last year doesn't need "fixing".

The number of submitted scores suggest otherwise:
Axelay - (9) total scores submitted
Zanac Neo - (9) total scores submitted
Metal Black - (9) total scores submitted
Radiant Silvergun - (6) total scores submitted
X-Multiply - (4) total scores submitted
Exed Exes - (2) total scores submitted

That is 6 of 10 months (August off, DDP in progress) that had less than (10) total participants.

I don't know how you can look at those numbers and not see room to improve OR let it be small and give the actives a larger voice.

[dsheinem]

.... There's drawbacks to each, all of which could potentially make the club worse.

My lobbying for the original method is that it produced a good year of games and participation and I don't see a serious flaw. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

As successful and fun as SotM is and will continue to be, your comments act as though there is no room for improvement and the system last year doesn't need "fixing".

The number of submitted scores suggest otherwise:
Axelay - (9) total scores submitted
Zanac Neo - (9) total scores submitted
Metal Black - (9) total scores submitted
Radiant Silvergun - (6) total scores submitted
X-Multiply - (4) total scores submitted
Exed Exes - (2) total scores submitted

That is 6 of 10 months (August off, DDP in progress) that had less than (10) total participants.

I don't know how you can look at those numbers and not see room to improve OR let it be small and give the actives a larger voice.

I think there's a fair amount of people who participated some months without submitting scores. There's room for improvement, sure - but I am not sure that changing the game selection process is necessarily the right method for improving things.

[mjmjr25]

I'd reckon more of us have Harmful Park and Pink Sweets ($100 games) than have (or care to play) Exed Exes / X-Multiply. (no offense to EE intended)

[noiseredux]

If, as has been suggested, committee members pick games because they are obscure/brutal/an area of specialty/etc, that could certainly drive away members.

I've lobbied hard for quite the opposite. Not to pick anything because it's obscure, brutal or an area of specialty... but because each of us might pick something very diff from each other that is uniquely awesome.

Yeah, but if people don't want to spend $30-$40 for a copy of Crimzon Clover, which must be played on PC, they are SOL for the game I wanted to pick.

Maybe mjm picks Pink Sweets

Maybe fvgazi picks Ketsui

Maybe foxhound wants Harmful Park

Those are all fine, unique games. BUT - all are expensive, most are not available on many platforms, and not all are well emulated by most (if any) PCs.

Without a voting mechanism there's no community recourse to veto picks like this. They are all perfectly good picks that maybe we WOULDN'T veto, but last year we certainly made at least a few picks based on availability and the like...

says the guy playing DDP via MAME rather than the expensive console port.

Honestly, I personally enjoy collecting. But looking thru the thread from this year it doesn't appear that most of the shmuppers that participated were averse to emulation.

[Tyranix95]

Voted!