Desert Island V Album Game: Master List

[Zoots]

This whole group system is flawed. And I'm not saying it cos I'm losing, lol. I'm saying it because it just doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm playing 4 other people randomly chosen from a hat... and losing to the more popular lists, which is fine. But in the meantime, somebody in another group may have a list that could be even less liked than mine and if I played that person I might win but I never get that chance with this system. Now, I know this is the system that many sporting tournaments follow... particularly World Cup Soccer. But don't they put teams together based on their strength or standing? I mean they would never put a newcomer in a group with Germany, Brazil and Italy. The problem here is there is no way to determine which are the stronger lists since it is all subjective. This is why the group system does not translate well to a music competition. Everyone should be allowed to play everyone else! Round Robin I guess? That means we'll have a lot more matches but at least it would be fair to all.

 

[the tourist]

Okay my DI-6 list is ready and I'm already 100% more psyched for that one than the present one! Any idea when we'll have it?

I second the sentiment of this, though my DI VI isn't finalised (it's close, though).

 

[Mr. V]

This whole group system is flawed. And I'm not saying it cos I'm losing, lol. I'm saying it because it just doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm playing 4 other people randomly chosen from a hat... and losing to the more popular lists, which is fine. But in the meantime, somebody in another group may have a list that could be even less liked than mine and if I played that person I might win but I never get that chance with this system. Now, I know this is the system that many sporting tournaments follow... particularly World Cup Soccer. But don't they put teams together based on their strength or standing? I mean they would never put a newcomer in a group with Germany, Brazil and Italy. The problem here is there is no way to determine which are the stronger lists since it is all subjective. This is why the group system does not translate well to a music competition. Everyone should be allowed to play everyone else! Round Robin I guess? That means we'll have a lot more matches but at least it would be fair to all.

Actually, they do put newcomers with strong teams. Usually, there's 4 teams per group, and each nation is tiered off into 4 pots, and a team from each pot is put in each group. The trouble with that is you have strong teams going in weak pots so you can end up with groups like Argentina, Netherlands, Mexico and Australia, for instance, which would be hell.

 

[phanan]

like i said for this competition, if you need help with keying stuff, i could do it for you

Thanks. You just keep my threads open.

 

[phanan]

This whole group system is flawed. And I'm not saying it cos I'm losing, lol. I'm saying it because it just doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm playing 4 other people randomly chosen from a hat... and losing to the more popular lists, which is fine. But in the meantime, somebody in another group may have a list that could be even less liked than mine and if I played that person I might win but I never get that chance with this system. Now, I know this is the system that many sporting tournaments follow... particularly World Cup Soccer. But don't they put teams together based on their strength or standing? I mean they would never put a newcomer in a group with Germany, Brazil and Italy. The problem here is there is no way to determine which are the stronger lists since it is all subjective. This is why the group system does not translate well to a music competition. Everyone should be allowed to play everyone else! Round Robin I guess? That means we'll have a lot more matches but at least it would be fair to all.

This is Round Robin style already. You have to split it up into groups. There's no way we could have each person play everyone. It would just take too long. Have you ever heard of a tournament that does that? I sure haven't.

And as Mr. V mentioned, they usually don't stack all the strong teams together in one group in the World Cup. That wouldn't make any sense. And since, as you say, music is subjective, the only fair way to do this, in my mind, is by drawing at random. I actually think the groups got spread out quite evenly this time.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Thanks. You just keep my threads open.

oh, and re: the whole group thing, i think we should put me in my own group. so then i always win

 

[Zoots]

Sure it is Round Robin but only after the groups are selected. I think that is the problem... because with this system how you do depends on who your neighbors are. It should depend on how popular the list is in comparison to EVERY other list.

Anyway, I realize that a group less round robin would make it longer but it seems to be the only way to judge the overall standing of each list. I personally don't know any tournaments that do this but there has to be something better than randomly tossing people into groups. Perhaps group the playlists on how similar they are? Example: Put indie lists together in one group so they don't consistently lose out to the more popular ones. But we'd have to think about what other similarities are there to use for grouping. I don't know.

 

[Screwtape2]

Sure it is Round Robin but only after the groups are selected. I think that is the problem... because with this system how you do depends on who your neighbors are. It should depend on how popular the list is in comparison to EVERY other list.

Anyway, I realize that a group less round robin would make it longer but it seems to be the only way to judge the overall standing of each list. I personally don't know any tournaments that do this but there's gotta be something better than randomly tossing people into groups. Perhaps group the playlists on how similar they are? Example: Put indie lists together in one group so they don't consistently lose out to the more popular ones. But we'd have to think about what other similarities are there to use for grouping. I don't know.

Zoots what would you think of something like this:

We play the group round robin and every playlist finishes in either 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th place in thier group. Then all the 5th place playlists go against each other for example leading to a 5th place representative. The same thing happens with the 4th, 3rd and 2nd place playlists. Then the four 1st place playlists play those four representatives. Which leads to a final and champion. I'm not suggesting we do that but would that be a better system to you?

 

[Zoots]

Zoots what would you think of something like this:

We play the group round robin and every playlist finishes in either 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th place in thier group. Then all the 5th place playlists go against each other for example leading to a 5th place representative. The same thing happens with the 4th, 3rd and 2nd place playlists. Then the four 1st place playlists play those four representatives. Which leads to a final and champion. I'm not suggesting we do that but would that be a better system to you?

It definitely sounds more fair than the present system. I'm curious as to how it would work out.

 

[phanan]

I don't think doing it that way would depict a champion the right way. There are playlists that finish in second in a group that could go on to win the whole thing outright.

I still don't see how it would be more fair than what we have right now, to be honest. It's never going to be perfect. It actually worked out very well this time. For example, in Group 1, it is spread evenly between a few veterans and two newcomers.

 

[phanan]

Without extending the competition, the only thing I can think of that may work is this. The playlists get sent out to everyone, we give people several weeks to listen to them all, and then they send in their rankings of the lists. And then, based on those rankings, we compile the groups from them, distributing them evenly, and proceed as normal.

 

[Zoots]

It actually worked out very well this time. For example, in Group 1, it is spread evenly between a few veterans and two newcomers.

Wait.. didn't you guys say that I got a tough draw yet again? Now you're saying it's even?

 

[LemonMelon]

Without extending the competition, the only thing I can think of that may work is this. The playlists get sent out to everyone, we give people several weeks to listen to them all, and then they send in their rankings of the lists. And then, based on those rankings, we compile the groups from them, distributing them evenly, and proceed as normal.

Now this I like.

 

[Screwtape2]

It definitely sounds more fair than the present system. I'm curious as to how it would work out.

I think the advantage to something like that beyond maybe being more fair in some people's minds is that it would keep people interested. I mean how many lose their first match or two and stop being interested. This way everyone would stay interested for a lot longer. I don't know, just a idea to throw out there.

 

[LemonMelon]

BTW, are we having matches today or tomorrow? I forget what the setup was in DI4 from round 2 on.

 

[phanan]

Wait.. didn't you guys say that I got a tough draw yet again? Now you're saying it's even?

Spread evenly in regards to each player's history with the game - not quality of playlists.

 

[phanan]

BTW, are we having matches today or tomorrow? I forget what the setup was in DI4 from round 2 on.

Yeah, I'm working on them.

 

[Zoots]

I think the advantage to something like that beyond maybe being more fair in some people's minds is that it would keep people interested. I mean how many lose their first match or two and stop being interested. This way everyone would stay interested for a lot longer.

That's a great point! I agree with this.

 

[Screwtape2]

Without extending the competition, the only thing I can think of that may work is this. The playlists get sent out to everyone, we give people several weeks to listen to them all, and then they send in their rankings of the lists. And then, based on those rankings, we compile the groups from them, distributing them evenly, and proceed as normal.

The one flaw I see in that is that based on the group and who is in it couldn't you see how unliked your playlist is before the first match is even played? I'm not sure people want to know they are doomed before the first match is even played.

 

[phanan]

The one flaw I see in that is that based on the group and who is in it couldn't you see how unliked your playlist is before the first match is even played? I'm not sure people want to know they are doomed before the first match is even played.

No, the rankings would be sent in secretly to me, and then, based on those rankings, I would create the groups. And each player would not be put in any specific order in each group, so nobody would know who ranked where.

We can discuss this more when DI6 starts, since it won't be for a while anyway.

 

[Zoots]

Spread evenly in regards to each player's history with the game - not quality of playlists.

Okay. Well, it was just an observation/suggestion. I still don't think the system is fair to all playing but if it's the best we can do without making the contest overly long, then it's fine I guess.

The one flaw I see in that is that based on the group and who is in it couldn't you see how unliked your playlist is before the first match is even played? I'm not sure people want to know they are doomed before the first match is even played.

!!!

 

[LMP]

Without extending the competition, the only thing I can think of that may work is this. The playlists get sent out to everyone, we give people several weeks to listen to them all, and then they send in their rankings of the lists. And then, based on those rankings, we compile the groups from them, distributing them evenly, and proceed as normal.

Now that seems the most fair, I would say.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Without extending the competition, the only thing I can think of that may work is this. The playlists get sent out to everyone, we give people several weeks to listen to them all, and then they send in their rankings of the lists. And then, based on those rankings, we compile the groups from them, distributing them evenly, and proceed as normal.

the only problem is we already get people voting who obviously haven't downloaded a single playlist, to me having them rank 20 or whatever playlists they haven't listened to seems even worse.

unless there were qualifications as to who would be submitting rankings, like participators in the tournament and veterans who either vote and/or submit lists, basically those we know wouldn't rank unless they'd listened to everything.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think it's fine the way it is, with Phanan's idea being the only idea so far that improves on it.

The Screw Proposal sounds much less fair, to me. Why should the last team in a group get to the final eight ahead of three second place teams? That is much worse than the current status.

Either keep it the same or group by the rankings as Phanan has said, say I.

 

[LemonMelon]

Now this I like.

Now that seems the most fair, I would say.

I think it's fine the way it is, with Phanan's idea being the only idea so far that improves on it.

The Screw Proposal sounds much less fair, to me. Why should the last team in a group get to the final eight ahead of three second place teams? That is much worse than the current status.

Either keep it the same or group by the rankings as Phanan has said, say I.

The Three Musketeers have Phanan's back on this one.

 

[phillyfan26]

If the Musketeers had honorary memberships (you cannot have more than three musketeers, of course), Phanan would have one.

 

[phillyfan26]

Question: With YLB's signature also making this relevant ... should our name temporarily be the Three Mavericks?

 

[LemonMelon]

Question: With YLB's signature also making this relevant ... should our name temporarily be the Three Mavericks?

The success of the Three Musketeers as purveyors of relevant humor has always depended upon ephemeral pop culture references. I support this.

 

[Mr. V]

I like the pre-group rankings idea. Using the World Cup example, that would enable the organisers to tier off everyone into different pots...

 

[the tourist]

If we do the rankings, I think the only people who should be able to do them are those participating. (see Khan's post)