Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, but that's all here nor there. I won the GTB, sans Vintrict's obvious plot to stop KB and Omi from reaching and assassinating Midus.

Don't worry, though, we'll get him.

That's right Vintrict. We'll get you.

With a score system, it's not as lenient, especially when the scores are so close in the first place.

Without my grade, this is the score between KB and Iden respectively:

24 + 23.1 = 47.1
21 + 22.9 = 43.9

That means Iden would need 3.3 in order to win, meaning the grades were very close regardless. A third judge is required in order to break this margin. Either KB will pass over or the third judge will give favor to Iden. In a 2/3 system, he would have won, but I made this grading system to make things more detailed. This system wasn't made so that scores gave "reasons" for having a judging said someone individually won. It was made to actually be the deciding factor, which I think a lot of people got confused about. Even though I graded KB low, I did it because I graded as a judge. And no matter how we put it, not all judges will think alike. There is an overall standard system in place. KB did good on his writing section. But his roleplaying quality didn't appeal "to me." All judges are entitled to their opinions. The grading system just shows "how much" each judge thought the other person was better.

So it's not a collection of "who should win" but a collection of "who did better amongst a three-judge panel overall." They graded Iden just as close to KB in the end, so no matter what they say, the third judge could have just said who he thought should win anyway since it was still up to him. I judged what I did without the knowledge of how the other two judges, so there was no influence whatsoever. In the end, one judge being able to tip the scales in someone favor is only a matter of exceptions and situations. One judge never has the same power to overrule two others mathematically.

That's something they'll have to ask you. Try PMing them.

I'm pretty sure that one judge can mathematically overrule the other two with a sufficient point difference, because that's exactly what happened in KB's fight. Two judges scored KB as winning. One scored him as losing with a sufficient margin that the point average had Iden in the lead. Ok, that's one judge mathematically overruling the decision of the majority.

Nothing about it being intentional or unintentional. Although either way, it is a problem.

I don't know if that problem has been fixed for this round and hereon, but it needs to be if it hasn't, because one judge overruling the majority makes absolutely zero sense, which has been explained ad naseum (literally) several days ago.

EDIT:: Melo, I'm not sure when/if I'll get around to posting. If you post tonight, I'll try to get to it, but I have some festival thing to go to with some friends, then after that I might go play poker and/or beer-pong, so if I don't post any tonight, that's why.

It's really not a good scoring system, in my opinion.

I mean, you can take the same argument and apply to the majority system.

If you win, it's because your roleplaying won a majority of the judges, and that more of them thought you deserved to win than thought you deserved to lose. THAT should matter more than how MUCH they thought you deserved your win or loss.

EDIT:: It should be noted that this is probably one of the only times I can think of where I've agreed with KB, so that probably means something.

In summary, there are so many theoretical scoring and judging systems out there that each have their pros and cons. Maybe I need to study more and figure out which would work better for a roleplaying tournament, cause there's a lot of theories, a lot of philosophy, and a lot of math that goes into making the "perfect" one for this type of event.

I chose the grading system to give each person more of a chance to use an area of strength that they were good in to help them maybe win, so if all three judges saw it as good, it showed a significant result on the scoreboard.

But I know one thing I'm going to fix for next round: I'm keeping the judges anonymous, much like how other professional systems do.

Nothing about a majority system is mutually exclusive about providing a numerical representation for why someone won or lost. There's nothing fair about one judge overriding the majority in something like this.

For grading like this, the majority should be right. You're supposed to be picking people who are well-suited to the task and trustworthy enough to judge ably and fairly, so that if a majority of the judges says "this person won", it's considered a fair and logical conclusion. If each judge is "certified" to offer their opinion, then two "certified judges" should outweigh one. If you're not going to trust the majority, then don't even bother having multiple judges.

It's not the best system, and it really doesn't work all that well; in my opinion it's pretty unfair when it blatantly ignores the fact that two judges are scoring one person a winner, and yet there's the potential that simply by having a different point margin, one judge can overrule the majority. No matter how someone chooses to explain that concept, it's never going to be fair, in my opinion.

If, in a system, one judge can basically invalidate the judgments of his two peers, then I'm going to have to say that this system is flawed and really should not be used. It simply defies logic that one person on a three-person panel can overturn the opinions of the other two just by giving more or less points to one of the participants.

Yeah, but the difference is that it's the points that talk this time around. Every point counts. A judge will likely grade and be just as surprised by the total between two fighters. He probably wouldn't even realized that one fighter that he thought wasn't doing so good was suddenly ahead of the other. This may be because the person's roleplaying was decent though they weren't controlling the fight, or they did some creative things that were logical.

I get what you're saying, but don't try to think of it as a majority sort of thing. Just think of it as three people scoring each individual on an individual area, with the sum of these scores calling the outcome rather than majority, minority, or however.