Single Comment

well, it's not a big deal, but hiding the inventors' names helps prevent voter bias. to think that this won't occur seems optimistic to me. in addition to people who might deliberately vote for their friends and against anybody they don't like, it's also easy for people to honestly believe that they're not doing it and do it nonetheless without being aware of it, and somehow rationalize the results. when i judged to 40 square contest, there wasn't anybody i didn't like, but i had to constantly remind myself not to go easy on my friends. <P> there's also the problem that an inventor with a reputation for excellent games may be judged more critically because people expect more from them - any musician or author who has had a bestseller is acutely aware of this problem. <P> those of you who were around for the large variant contest and read the yahoo board may remember one of the finalists openly admitting that he simply had all his friends and family members vote for his game without even reading the rules. actually, hiding inventors' names wouldn't eliminate this problem, but it makes the point that honest voting does not always occur. <P> fergus has largely eliminated this problem by requiring voters to vote on more than one game and to put in meaningful comments. it looks like fergus upgraded the comments requirement, possibly in response to the comments from the large chess variants contest. i read through the comments to this contest today and some of them are insightful but some of the commentators obviously couldn't judge their way out of a paper bag and don't understand the concept of objective judging. i looked at the 100 square contest comments too tho and they seem a lot better.