Oh sorry maybe I phrased that wrong, I meant instead of rating the games against each other in a list, just rate them individually through discussion, independent of other games and not ranking them at all. Then we could have a list of games with ratings but not in any discernable order, so we'd avoid the whole "how is _____ ahead of _____" crap you get with those lists.
Another option is to do away with the idea of ranking them against each other, and simply make this process about applying a comprehensive rating to each individual game, much like GameFAQs does. My goal then would be to devise a system of rating that is better than theirs, which would be a fun topic of discussion in itself. Do think this would be a more viable pursuit than the top 100 list itself?
As far as the margins of elimination, I've already made it so a game simply must receive more yes votes than no. What I could do is make this first wave of voting simply for the purpose of weeding out the obvious losers, and then a second wave of eliminations can be for the tougher decisions. The requirements for elimination would change with each round, to accommodate this. What do you think?
Well, an idea that occurred to me was something along the lines of a redemption, where certain games could be "brought back" from elimination. This would give games like CoD a deserved second chance, but the problem lies in how to achieve that. A popular vote would be useless there because the same people who voted it out the first time would vote it out again. A discussion is viable, but I would be forced to give myself more power--the power to judge the arguments, which I'm hesitant to do. I suppose it's inevitable though, as not all of the users are equal as far as intelligence goes.
I'm sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but you attacked me and I am defending myself. I have great respect for you and your knowledge, which is why I take the time to respond to you and actually consider your suggestions. I would expect the same respect and courtesy from you, rather than insulting me.
Further, I don't exercise veto power because I believe that's not fair to everyone else. Why should I have the absolute power to change a vote the community has spoken on? As unbiased as I attempt to be, I'm still human and imperfect. I am not going to sit here and pretend my view of a game is better than anyone else's, so vetoing a vote is not fair.
I am well aware of how futile this endeavor seems to you. It's probably too much to ask for Smogon to be sensible when they evaluate games. However, I wouldn't have begun this process if I didn't have confidence in my intelligence and ability to find a way to make it work. As I told you before, I am open to suggestions if you really think you have the answer. However, what I am not open to is complaining about how bad my work is without offering a solution. Until you actually take the time to devise and suggest a better way to do what I am doing, you are being just as "lazy" as you accuse me of doing.
Pardon me, but I fail to see how I haven't done "any" work. I was copy pasting people's nominations, but I was attempting to spot repetitions before they appeared on the list. Sure I missed some, it's a huge list and I couldn't be bothered to go through the entire list of 500 every time someone made a new post. I also made corrections immediately when I discovered mistakes. I took the time out of my busy schedule to type out these long posts, plan out the steps of the process, facilitate and track the nominations, create the surveys for voting (which I was counting BY HAND before), and respond to users such as yourself who had concerns and questions. I took sole responsibility for this, which means I opened myself for all of the backlash, mocking, disrespect, etc. without involving anyone else. I put that burden on MY shoulders alone, so don't tell me I'm lazy or not doing any work.
