Lemmings Forums

The topic is for polls for adaptations to the level design contests.

For the discussions themselves please stick to the discussion topics.

So far we had the following two:

1.) https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=6807.0
2.) https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=6622.0

I won't change major things like the whole entry system before I know that at least a significant portion of people is behind certain ideas.

The first poll I want to make is about people feel if the basic entry structure should be changed.

Before touching the voting system let's first see how people fell about the rule/entry system, as it may effect the degree in which the voting should be updated.

1st poll: How many entries/rules should level design contests have?

- (As before) Multiple rules with possible multiple entries per author. (6 votes)
- Only one rule with only one entry per author. (2 votes)

Note: Only one rule with only one entry per author will not automatically lead to much more frequent contests as even then sufficient time to (mainly) design, play and (to a lesser extend) vote needs to be accounted for.

2nd poll: With muliple rules/entries: How shall the winner be determined?

- The best levels of each rule survive and we determine the winners in a mixed round. (as before) (1 vote)
- Only 1 level survives each rule and those 3 levels determine the top 3 in one final round. (Finding the top 1 for each rule may require 1 tiebreaker round) (7 votes)

3rd poll: Shall the "choose the next contest's rules" prize be split up between the top 3 levels?

- Yes (8 votes)
- No (0 votes)

If an author has multiple levels in the top 3 they then get to choose as many rules as they have levels in the final round.

4th poll: Which levels from a level design contest should automatically qualify for LOTY?

- Only the winner (3 votes)
- Winner and runner-up (1 vote)
- The top 3 (7 votes)
- No one (0 votes)

5th poll: Shall more than one vote be granted in the voteoff of the single rules depending on the number of levels inside a rule?

- Yes, given enough entries inside a rule we should have more votes than 1. (9 votes)
- No, it shall always be just 1 vote. (0 votes)

6th poll: Shall the result of the vote only be revealed after the voting-period has run out?

- Yes, the result should only be revealed after the voting-period has run out.
- No, the current vote distribution shall be revealed after your vote has been sent in.

Result - new format of the contest:

Structure:

- 3 different rules to design levels for.
- Each person can design 1 level for each of the 3 rules.
- We will list the current rule/bucket size in the contest topic during the submission phase.
- A level that statisfies multiple rules can only be submittet to one. The author can choose which one though.
- Levels for different rules need to be completely different levels and not just minor modifications of each other (if not the current ruleset strictly requires this).

Voting:

- Voting takes place for all 3 rules at the same time.
- Only the level with the most votes in each rule moves on. Each person only gets floor(log2 n) vote for each rule. This translates to: 2 and 3 levels - 1 vote. 4 to 7 levels - 2 votes. 8 to 15 levels - 3 votes.
- Dertermining the top level in a rule might result in a tiebreaker. (Edge case: A tiebreaker between tied levels results in another tie where nobody is eliminated -> All move on.)
- The top 3 then consists of the top level of reach rule. The placement is then determined in a single voting round. Each person only gets 1 vote. A tie here simply results in a tied 1st or 2nd place.

Prize:

- The "choosing the rules for the next contest" prize will be the only one you can get.
- The authors of the top three levels will each get to choose a rule. If an author got multiple levels in the top three they get to choose multiple rules accordingly.
- If people choose (near) identical rules we will sort things out through pm communication so that the rules are different.
- The top 3 of a contest automatically qualify for that years LOTY.

QuoteNote: Only one rule with only one entry per author will not automatically lead to much more frequent contests as even then sufficient time to (mainly) design, play and (to a lesser extend) vote needs to be accounted for.

My suggestion in this regard was basically to get rid of the mixed rounds. So, still running three rules at once (just like we currently do), but we just find a winner from each individual rule, instead of having any mixed rounds. As such, it shouldn't be much different to the status quo in terms of time needed.

I suspect the response to this poll is going to be very different depending on whether an approach like this, vs basically just "keep the same frequency but one entry and one rule per contest", is the proposal.

Quote from: namida on September 12, 2024, 11:08:56 PM

QuoteNote: Only one rule with only one entry per author will not automatically lead to much more frequent contests as even then sufficient time to (mainly) design, play and (to a lesser extend) vote needs to be accounted for.

My suggestion in this regard was basically to get rid of the mixed rounds. So, still running three rules at once (just like we currently do), but we just find a winner from each individual rule, instead of having any mixed rounds. As such, it shouldn't be much different to the status quo in terms of time needed.

I suspect the response to this poll is going to be very different depending on whether an approach like this, vs basically just "keep the same frequency but one entry and one rule per contest", is the proposal.

Then I will adress this in a separate poll.

So first if we should keep the multiple rule structure at all and then if we should treat them as in your suggestion.

Then my vote is - keep multiple rules (but for the next poll: treat them as three contests running in parallel, with seperate winners, no mixed round).

+1 for no mixed rounds and 1 winner from each rule (assuming 3 rules is kept - from the current poll results, it's most likely).

The final round can then simply pit the 3 winning levels against each other to determine 1st, 2nd and 3rd place.

Ok, 2nd poll: With muliple rules/entries: How shall the winner be determined?

- The best levels of each rule survive and we determine the winners in a mixed round. (as before)
- Only 1 level survives each rule and those 3 levels determine the top 3 in one final round. (Finding the top 1 for each rule may require 1 tiebreaker round so that only 1 level moves on and the final round is only 1 vote as a result)

In any case: I will host the voting for all 3 rules simultaniously in 3 dedicated rule voting topics to save time!

As we are currently on it anyway, I will make an extra poll at the end if the rule prize shall be split up between the top 3.

If the rule prize is split between the top 3 it's worth noting, since 1-survivor-per-rule would result in exactly 3 finalists, that it would be possible to announce rules for the next contest during the vote(s) to determine the order of the top 3.

Alright, I've put up a 3rd poll regarding the prize split up between the top 3 levels.
If an author has multiple levels in the top 3 they then get to choose as many rules as they have levels in the final round.

So far this would be the new format of the contests:

Structure:

- 3 different rules to design levels for.
- Each person can design 1 level for each of the 3 rules.

Voting:

- Voting takes place for all 3 rules at the same time.
- Only the level with the most votes in each rule moves on. Each person only gets 1 vote for each rule.
- Dertermining the top level in a rule might result in a tiebreaker. (Edge case: A tiebreaker between tied levels results in another tie where nobody is eliminated -> All move on.)
- The top 3 then consists of the top level of reach rule. The placement is then determined in a single voting round. Each person only gets 1 vote. A tie here simply results in a tied 1st or 2nd place.


Are there any more ideas that I should put up to a poll?
Did I make any big mistakes here?

Please feel free to comment.  :)

Just dropping off a quick post to say thank you to all who have dropped off suggestions/feedback for Icho and me in order to potentially make improvements to the contest system  :thumbsup: I will be reading over the discussion topics Icho linked to in the OP over the next few days and will drop off my thoughts once I do so just to make sure that I too am understanding everything correctly  :) Thanks again all!  :thumbsup:   

Ditch the money prize (USD 5).

What happens when two different people choose practically identical rules? Will you run two buckets with identical rules? What happens if an author submits only one level (instead of two), does he have to guess beforehand which bucket has bigger chances to win? Or will you merge the two buckets and authors get to submit two levels? Will you declare one winner or two from the merged bucket?

Or do you ask one of the rule choosers to choose a different rule? Which chooser do you ask? (Each previous contest produces only equal winners, one per rule, that you never rank against each other.)

-- Simon

Quote from: Simon on September 17, 2024, 09:07:56 AMDitch the money prize (USD 5).

Ditching the money prize and only offering the rule prize I fully agree with. It suits the theme better!

Thanks for bringing up the edge cases!  :thumbsup:

QuoteWhat happens when two different people choose practically identical rules? Will you run two buckets with identical rules?

I will then contact both people and offer solutions via pm. It could be that person choose to change the rule voluntarily for example, or they both together can create another rule both agree with.
There won't be two buckets with identical rules though.

in general, I think this can be solved through pm discussion.

QuoteWhat happens if an author submits only one level (instead of two), does he have to guess beforehand which bucket has bigger chances to win? Or will you merge the two buckets and authors get to submit two levels? Will you declare one winner or two from the merged bucket?

Yes, this is the thing I am most unsure about.

Most of the time the rules have roughly the same number of entries and when differences occured the adjusted survival rate kicked in.
For small rule/bucket differences I would say the 1 survvivor rule is fine, but we should talk about the special case of large differences in bucket/rule size.

Some options I thought of:

* List the current rule/bucket size in the contest topic during the submission phase. -> Promotes smaller rules/buckets and can lead to equalization. I highly tend to include this.
* Merge the voting for 2 rules and have 2 survivors in that bucket (ensured by a tiebreaker if needed). - This could still be unequal.
* Keep the system and have that inequality - This would make harder rules more alluring and somewhat reward people tackling the more obscure rules, but it is unequal!

I will have aother thought about it, but in the meantime I am happy to hear more suggestions!  :)

QuoteYes, this is the thing I am most unsure about.

Most of the time the rules have roughly the same number of entries and when differences occured the adjusted survival rate kicked in.
For small rule/bucket differences I would say the 1 survvivor rule is fine, but we should talk about the special case of large differences in bucket/rule size.

I thought that Simon was following on from the "if you run two identical rules at the same time" starting point here. IE: If the same rule exists twice, but a level creator only wants to enter once, how is that handled?

Quote from: namida on September 17, 2024, 08:31:09 PM

QuoteYes, this is the thing I am most unsure about.

Most of the time the rules have roughly the same number of entries and when differences occured the adjusted survival rate kicked in.
For small rule/bucket differences I would say the 1 survvivor rule is fine, but we should talk about the special case of large differences in bucket/rule size.

I thought that Simon was following on from the "if you run two identical rules at the same time" starting point here. IE: If the same rule exists twice, but a level creator only wants to enter once, how is that handled?

Ok, if that is the case I would simply say "There won't be two identical rules".

Quote from: IchoTolot on September 17, 2024, 02:02:29 PMvia pm. It could be that person choose to change the rule voluntarily for example, or they both together can create another rule both agree with.
There won't be two buckets with identical rules though.

Right, on practically identical rules, you can PM both rule choosers. Or PM one of them at random.

Quote from: namida on September 17, 2024, 08:31:09 PMSimon was following on from the "if you run two identical rules at the same time" starting point here.

Right, this is solved because Icho will prevent two practically identical rules.

This brings

Quote from: IchoTolot on September 17, 2024, 02:02:29 PMYes, this is the thing I am most unsure about.

There is indeed a worry here even with all-different rules, and I haven't thought about it before now: An author creates a level that satisfies two different rules. This has been less important in previous contests because the buckets merged eventually into a single bucket for the semifinals.

Now, buckets for different rules won't merge. Should the author commit the two-rule-satisfying level to only one rule? Can the author submit the level to both rules? If we want to forbid this: Can the author submit variants of the level that differ only minimally? How big a difference is enough?

My first hunch is to allow the same level to enter both rules and possibly win both. It's boring but clear, it leaves no room for arguments.

-- Simon

Quote from: Simon on September 18, 2024, 12:34:37 AMMy first hunch is to allow the same level to enter both rules and possibly win both. It's boring but clear, it leaves no room for arguments.

Totally agree with this.  :thumbsup:

QuoteNow, buckets for different rules won't merge. Should the author commit the two-rule-satisfying level to only one rule? Can the author submit the level to both rules? If we want to forbid this: Can the author submit variants of the level that differ only minimally? How big a difference is enough?

My first hunch is to allow the same level to enter both rules and possibly win both. It's boring but clear, it leaves no room for arguments.

It can be quite easy to make a level for multiple rules. Especially if one rule is to simply use a certain tileset. They still merge for the final round.

Until now the author could choose for themselves to which rule the level should count towards.

I would be against letting a level enter in multiple rules. It just feels wrong to me to have a level be voted on in multiple brackets and possibly win and move on more than once.
Also I have a feeling that this will be abused and we get a lot of double-rule entries in the future.

I would still suggest to let the author decide to which rule the level should count towards.

QuoteCan the author submit variants of the level that differ only minimally? How big a difference is enough?

This I would catch and prevent during the submission phase. In terms of how big of a difference is enough - It needs to be a completely different level and not just a modification.

As input dries up: I've listet the new format in the first post here.

If I get no further objections or further edge cases we should define, I plan to start a new contest in about a week from now.

I will not try out anonymizing the authors names in this one though as we already have quite a few changes and let's see how the new format goes first. :)

I suppose if an author wanted to create a level which satisfies all rule sets, they could then choose a rule for which to submit their level. No bonus points for doing so, of course, but contest players might regard it as a nice easter egg if nothing else ;P

I will lock this topic for now.

It will be reactivated when more discussions regarding possible rule changes arise and the need fur further polls is there.  :)

I want to clarify the "Note that levels that won a level design contest during the eligible timeframe get an automatic nomination, unless their author requests otherwise." point for LOTY as the runner-ups did also fall under the winner clause the last years.

So: Which levels of the top 3 shall automatically qualify for LOTY? I've put up a poll.  :)

So, the top three will always be one level from each rule, right (except perhaps in very specific edge cases with tiebreakers?).

If so, then IMO, from most to least preferred:

All three > 1st place only > None of them > 1st and 2nd place

Quote from: namida on February 16, 2025, 11:18:06 PMSo, the top three will always be one level from each rule, right (except perhaps in very specific edge cases with tiebreakers?).

If so, then IMO, from most to least preferred:

All three > 1st place only > None of them > 1st and 2nd place

Exactly.

2+ levels from a rule would be an edge case where even in the optional tiebreaker round we have a tie and then in the final round those 2+ levels would all do better than the ones from the other rules.

Alright, I've put the result in the first post and according to it the top 3 qualify for LOTY.  :)

One thing occurs to me when reading over this topic and the discussion topics: it's still possible for the same designer to take all 3 of the top spots.

The main goal of the discussion topic I started was to see more designers in the top 3, for the reason that it might help to encourage more participation in the contests. And OK, polling and general discussion seems to reflect a lack of interest in this happening for its own sake, fine.

I do still wonder, though, whether it might be worth at least mentioning the next 2 highest-placing designers when publishing the final result of the contest. That is, if there are < 3 designers in the top 3 spots.

It's then up to the winner if they want to share the prize of determining the next contest's rules, of course ;P But, getting a mention in the final result post can be a decent enough reward if your level has done particularly well in the contest.

You can't reliably state the next places after the top 3 in this format.

We would need to go into the 3 seperate results from the rule votings and here we would have 3 (or more) equal sencond places.

As then the final result post would tend to simply shout out most of the designers, my suggestion would be to give a general thanks to all participants by name in the results topic. That way everybody gets a mention.

One thing I'd like to change with the current voting system is, if there are four or more levels in a category (or in a mixed round... four or more levels from different authors), to allow people to vote for up to two levels, mainly because with 1 person, 1 vote, the level creators are very likely going to vote for their own levels (unless someone is feeling very generous) and the swing votes are those who didn't design for a category.  With 2 per person, a creator can vote for their own level as well as one they were particularly impressed by.  Granted, that gives non-designers two votes, so I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

Regarding this post and the additioal discussion on discord, I plan to make 2 more polls after the current contest regarding the following 2 points:

1.) Allow more than 1 vote during the voteoff inside the rules depending on the number of entries inside each rule. Again, this does not effect the finals!
2.) Making the poll result only visible after the voting has been concluded. So only the end result will be visible after the time ran out.

Again if people have more input here be free to post!  :)

I've tried to stay out of contest participation and discussion but after reading the topic created by WillLem linked above in the first post for the first time. I feel like I need to explain why I stopped participating as my name is mentioned as being one of the people who only reached the top 3 once in the sample of LDC contest podium displays.

:lemming: First of all, it should be pointed out that I only reached the top 3 once and it was in the only design contest I participated in for that period I believe.

:lemming: The contests don't allow collaborative levels. About 50% of levels I create nowadays are collaborations of some sort. I understand that collaboration levels is a big can of worms in itself and allowing them in contests is complicated. But I'm curious, were they ever allowed in contests? And if so, why were they then subsequently not allowed?

:lemming: It seems like the contests don't allow anything made outside of NeoLemmix or Lix. While I'm active in the Lix community, I excel at making multiplayer levels more in that community and my single player efforts are largely non-existent. I did try making contest levels using Lix at one point but then I ended up making them into multiplayer levels instead. Multiplayer levels in Lix are not allowed in contests.
Also, why is superLemmix not allowed in contests? I'm actually working on a project in superLemmix at the moment and anything I make there is automatically non-eligible for contests...?

:lemming: I also backed out of the contests because my levels were not getting played by many people, there seems to be a bias towards voting levels which are made using the classic Lemmings tilesets. I was entering contests with tilesets I had made and it feels like my levels were at a disadvantage at the start for being unfamiliar and as a consequence they weren't being played let alone getting voted for. A few people did play them but they were always the same people, the kind who would bulldoze all the levels in the contest and want a full plethora of replays before posting their results.

:lemming: In the current contest, the whole 1 vote per person across the 4 or 5 levels was too low I thought. I agree that people would just vote for their own level. I would also be in favour of keeping results hidden until the conclusion of the voting round.

I'm just throwing out there my reasons for quitting the contests, I'm not nit picking and I feel like I just wanted this written down here. I'm not an active NeoLemmix solver anymore, I do fire up the contest levels every now and again and see what I can solve. I usually have a bad time and rarely solve many levels. I vote based on which levels I enjoyed trying to solve even if I don't end up getting there.

Copy/paste from Discord what I wrote/discussed:

That was exactly my concern from the start with the 1 vote system, where creators would likely just vote for their own level because, why wouldn't you? There's no reason to vote for anyone else's level this way. That's why under this change my hope was that creators/participants would use the honor system and not vote for their own level or just not vote at all, but this is asking a lot of the contest entrants, and unless there's a setting only admins can set for that, I don't think it can be prevented.

To be honest, I don't think I've even voted in any of the rounds since the contest voting system overhaul and shift to the 1 vote system, especially if my level is in the running. I personally don't believe in putting a vote for my own level to win, but at the same time I haven't been helping any level or anyone to win this way by not putting in a vote at all.

Another possibility to consider might be to not show poll results at all until the poll expires, which the poll creator can select when making the poll. This would mean a change to a longstanding thing with contests of switching from results being visible after one has voted to not being able to see results at all until the poll has ran its course, but again just a thought. In this way, it will now be the same for everyone by not allowing results to be seen until the poll expires. Before, with the results being visible after one has voted option, this would allow only those who have voted to be able to see them, but those who haven't voted will either have to vote to see the results, or just wait for the poll to expire. Of course, people are still free to discuss the levels via PM or offsite, but at least now in this way e.g, it won't be possible to know if levels are tied at any given moment until after the voting ends for the round.

Honestly, thinking about this, I really should had spoken up a lot sooner about my concerns with the first point :-[ Instead, I decided to give the 1 vote system a chance to play out, hoping that contest participants would have some kind of honor system in place when it came to the voting and not vote for their own level just for the heck of it.

In any case, what we're currently doing now with the reduced number of votes and rounds is still a huge improvement in general over what we were doing before! :thumbsup: However, as can be seen, we can potentially still do better! ;) 

I know you stated that you are not an active NeoLemmix solver, but I still want to explain some things.

QuoteThe contests don't allow collaborative levels. About 50% of levels I create nowadays are collaborations of some sort. I understand that collaboration levels is a big can of worms in itself and allowing them in contests is complicated. But I'm curious, were they ever allowed in contests? And if so, why were they then subsequently not allowed?

We had a special collaboration contest at some point. If, for example, a collaboration rule is chosen I would not be against it.

QuoteIt seems like the contests don't allow anything made outside of NeoLemmix or Lix. ... Multiplayer levels in Lix are not allowed in contests. ... Also, why is superLemmix not allowed in contests?

For these I would recommend organizing seperate contests.

Multiplayer levels are completely different from single player in design, way of playing and target audience. A seperate contest would be the best option here.

I even mentioned to Simon about hosting a Lix Multiplayer contest. ;)

In the case of SuperLemmix:

For one, I also would point at different target audiences - execution focus (SLX) and puzzle focus (NL + Lix). One of the main reasons I highly encouraged Will in his SLX effort was so that excecution difficulty and all the old mess can stay out of NL while still finding a new engine for it and the target audience.

But exactly because of the different engine focus that I personally really fed up with over the time (timed bombers, gimmicks, radiation etc etc....), I will make a hard call here:
As I won't play SLX content, I won't host SLX contests. I would be biased and therefore unfit to host such a contest.

People can host their own contest for it, but I would stay out of it.

I would call myself one of SLX supporters, but purely that I can play in peace.

I am aware that this seems harsh, but I don't want to be involved and even organize something that I do not enjoy and therefore do a bad job. That would be unfair to everyone.

QuoteI also backed out of the contests because my levels were not getting played by many people

Here from my experience many people simply play in silence and do not post about their experience. My general expectation is no feedback apart from the vote and if I get any it is a nice surprise.

QuoteIn the current contest, the whole 1 vote per person across the 4 or 5 levels was too low I thought. I agree that people would just vote for their own level. I would also be in favour of keeping results hidden until the conclusion of the voting round.

This sounds like the proposed polls are indeed a good thing to do.  ;)

I started the first poll regarding the number of votes for the rule voteoff. Be sure to vote.  :)

QuoteShall more than one vote be granted in the voteoff of the single rules depending on the number of levels inside a rule?
Yes
No

"No" means what exactly? Always one vote? Always multiple votes? Different system (e.g., instant-runoff system where each voter submits an ordered list) instead of first-preference?

-- Simon

Quote from: Simon on July 21, 2025, 05:37:58 PM

QuoteShall more than one vote be granted in the voteoff of the single rules depending on the number of levels inside a rule?
Yes
No

"No" means what exactly? Always one vote? Always multiple votes? Different system (e.g., instant-runoff system where each voter submits an ordered list) instead of first-preference?

-- Simon

No should always mean one vote - I clarified the options.

I definitely think the number of votes should be roughly proportional to the number of levels being voted between. You can't completely eliminate the impact of the whole "level some people like a lot and some people don't vs level everyone kinda likes" thing in a voteoff of any kind, but I think avoiding forcing a choice of one level out of many (unless it's down to the last two, or maybe three, levels of the entire contest) goes a long way towards reducing it at least.

My original proposal was that if there are 4 or more levels in a list, then everyone gets 2 votes so level designers who naturally select their own level (unless they're feeling extremely generous) can also choose a level that they very much enjoy.

Whether only 1 level gets through or not I left up in the air.  I imagine if there are, say, 8 levels or more, then things might get switched up again.

I think the important thing is to disentangle the two questions. The number of votes everyone gets to cast does not have to equal the number of levels that make it through to the mixed group. If we separate those, then we can make meaningful decisions on each one, and we won't have a tug-of-war where both want to change and drag the other with them.

My thoughts on both:

Only one level should go through, except in case of ties. If we keep the "3 rules, with a mixed group to determine the overall winner" structure (and that structure has worked well and I don't see a reason to change it), then the ideal is one voting round per group and one for the mixed round. We have to have some system in place in case of ties, but if we go back to multiple levels going through then we have more voting rounds even in the best case, with even more if tiebreaks are needed, and we risk a return to the bad old days of contests being bogged down in an unending stream of votes.

(In case anyone doesn't know or doesn't remember how bad things used to be, the contest that provoked the discussion that led to us changing the system had eleven votes to select a winner out of twelve levels.)

It's true that with only one level going through from each group, the second-best level in each group can't get a prize even if it's second-best overall. I'm fine with that. "Best" is subjective anyway, and the important thing is to have a voting system that does the job of selecting a top three that is in some measure representative of the community's preferences, without the voting being too complicated or taking too long. The phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good" comes to mind.

As someone who occasionally enters contests but usually doesn't, yes, I would like to be able to vote for more than one level in the rule groups, if there are at least 4 entries. There being a lot of high-quality levels is more common than not, and it's great to be able to recognise this by voting for my favourite two (or even three in a large group); then even if they don't win, I feel at least I was able to give them my support.

I am in line with Proxima here.

The general idea would be:

The number of votes will go up with the amount of entries inside a rule. Still only 1 level per rule will survive though!

This would still keep the number of  voting rounds the same as before - 1 round for the rules - 1 possible tiebreker there - and then the finals between the last 3 levels.

Everything will still be over in 2-3 rounds then.

Crane's proposal would roughly be impletmented - I will try to keep the number of votes at <= 50% of the entries in each rule. So at 4 we can have 2 votes and maybe around 6 entries I will raise it to 3.

I did not specify any strict rule in the voting for this to keep it a bit flexible.

If I had to give a mathematical formula for my proposal, the number of votes would equal the base 2 logarithm of the number of levels, rounded down.  i.e. for number of levels n:

floor(log₂ n)

• At 1 level, it's 0 votes because that's the only one that could possibly go through.
• At 2 and 3 levels, it's 1 vote.
• At 4 to 7 levels, it's 2 votes.
• At 8 to 15 levels, it's 3 votes.
• And so on and so forth.

All great points and feedback, thanks everyone! :thumbsup: I completely agree with Icho that it should just still be one level survives regardless of how many votes we get. We haven't had any tiebreakers after the rule voteoffs for tied levels since the contest voting system overhaul, but I also agree there with the edge case that all levels move on if the tiebreaker ends in a tie too. In any case, the community seems to be in favor of knowing the results ASAP instead of having an endless amount of rounds of voting because of ties! The new voting system definitely works quite well with greatly reducing the number of voting rounds and, combined with multiple voting topics open, hence shortening the overall voting time tremendously! :thumbsup:

Also Crane's proposal with the base 2 log on the number of levels to determine the number of votes sounds excellent! :thumbsup: 

Watching the last vote-off carefully, Rule 3 was dead even between "Migraine" and "Quick Lab Rush" at 4 votes each, but then someone else voted close to the cut-off time to break the tie.  So ties are definitely possible.

Quote from: Crane on July 23, 2025, 02:22:18 AMWatching the last vote-off carefully, Rule 3 was dead even between "Migraine" and "Quick Lab Rush" at 4 votes each, but then someone else voted close to the cut-off time to break the tie.  So ties are definitely possible.

Right, there wasn't ever a doubt that ties aren't possible at all under the new system. I was simply pointing out that tiebreakers so far haven't been needed, though to be fair it's only been two contests under the new way :P With more votes depending on how many levels there are for the ruleset, I suspect ties will be more frequent, especially if the maximum number of votes per user is used each time, but of course one can always cast less than the maximum amount of votes allowed if they want.

In any case, like Icho already mentioned, contests would still be over after a few rounds no matter what is decided here. 

Indeed, and regarding the above point, I don't know if someone voted at the last minute just to break the tie or if they legitimately left it late, but hiding the poll results until it closes will also help to avoid any possible manipulation.

Quote from: Crane on July 23, 2025, 03:11:49 AMIndeed, and regarding the above point, I don't know if someone voted at the last minute just to break the tie or if they legitimately left it late...

Your guess is as good as mine. It could very well be for other reasons too. What's done is done, though. There's nothing that can be done about the results. Instead, let's turn our attention and focus on more important matters, such as things that will be decided by polling.

Quote...but hiding the poll results until it closes will also help to avoid any possible manipulation.

Exactly, that's why I put forth the suggestion that poll results be hidden entirely until the closing of the poll instead of having them be shown to the user once he/she has casted a vote like it always has been done. That's the other option the poll creator can select when making one. This point will be up for polling once Icho makes the call for the current one, takes it down, and puts up the new one ;)

Ok, in a few hours I will start the next poll as this one should be decided - with 9-0 in favor of multiple votes. As for the number of votes I will go with Crane's suggestion as I like the distribution and I haven't heard any heavy points against it.

I started the second poll regarding when the voting distribution shall be revealed.  :)

A quick reminder to vote!  ;)