Ok so change the date to September 1st.  Should we require these to be public games so that we can check a voter if we want, or is this basically on the honor system?

I guess if I don't hear any other suggestions for change, I'll go ahead and post a placeholder thread tomorrow so that we can put a link to that thread in our board descriptions.  Then after the boards go live, Yertle can edit my post with links to the boards.

I think the honor system is fine, an admin can always look if it becomes really important, but I do not see an incentive to vote if you are unfamiliar with what you are voting on nor do I see dishonest voting (intentional or otherwise) being the majority of voters so we should be okay.

The rest sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me.

Where do we announce that we've played all of the boards?

In the thread that I am going to create in the general forum, you'll affirm that you played all the boards and vote. 

I'm pretty much ready to create that thread, but I'd like to do it when the boards are pretty much ready to go.  I guess someone on the map making council let me know when we are a day or two from wrapping up and I'll post the introduction to the general public/voting thread.  Then we all edit our descriptions to have a link to that thread in the map description.  Then the review council passes all the maps.  Then yertle edits my post in the voting thread to link to all the maps.

At that point I guess we should all create a couple of games on our maps to get things started.

I am not sure there is a need to hold up releasing the maps as the description can be changed afterwards and there isn't a problem with people playing one board or another before they all go live.  Once they are live, then the thread can be created and the description can be changed.

Oh.  I forgot you could change descriptions after a board is released.  I guess that makes sense then for the boards to just get released as they are finished.  Maybe each designer should post a link to their map in this thread after it goes live so that I don't have to hunt them down?

Yertle would still have to add the links to the tournament entries in the forum.

Tournament?  You mean the map making contest entries?  Just making sure we are talking about the same thing, as I don't think I've heard tournament's mentioned yet.

If I wait to make the post until all the boards have passed review, I could just link to them right in my post, right?  Am I missing something?

yes, the list of boards, I don't know what I was thinking, but it was late.  or you could always wait until all are released.

Ummm, it looks like mine was passed.  Are we good with passing more that are ready? (Seems like a good idea to me!)

Ozyman wrote:

How about if we just have a tag for 'cartography competition' or something like that.  That would work about as well as a separate category/subheading, but much easier for Tom to implement.

We could highjack the Abstract tag for the Competition, there are only a couple of boards that are Abstract, and I think they are all currently Novelty too.  And people would be like "Abstract" that's not Abstract, but how we use the tag is kind of Abstract so I think it would count :). 

(For the record I still don't know a good definition of Abstract/Novelty for tags, so I just throw them on some boards here and there :P.)

Yertle wrote:

And people would be like "Abstract" that's not Abstract, but how we use the tag is kind of Abstract so I think it would count :).

Not sure if serious. 

Sounds a bit confusing to me.  Is it hard for Tom to add another tag?  Maybe it's not worth it at this point, but if we do a few contests it might be nice to have them all under one tag.  Is 'CartographyCompetition' too long?  Maybe 'CartogContest' instead.

I think this board is a good example of what I think of as 'abstract', although I'm not sure if there are any other at this point:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/2428/Board

-paul

Yertle wrote:

Ummm, it looks like mine was passed.  Are we good with passing more that are ready? (Seems like a good idea to me!)

Yeah - I think lets get them all passed and then I'll post a thread in the general discussion to get everyone involved and have a place for people to vote.  I guess I'll message the people in my game to get my board passed.

Mine should pass soon.  I think I am finished with the graphics and such and that everyone has voiced their opinion.  Anyone interested can view the review game (its fogged so don't expect much); http://www.wargear.net/games/view/69995.

Ok here is what I've found so far:

• Yertle - http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Pang+Age/
• Ozyman - http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Pangaea+and+Panthalassa
• Viper - http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Pangaea
• Raptor - http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Pirates+of+Pangea

I think we just need Alpha & Yuma now.  So once those get done, someone post here to let me know and then I'll post the invitation/voting thread.

I don't necessarily want to complicate the voting, but here are some other categories I thought of:

• Map designers choice (either just the map makers who created a Pangaea map get to vote in this category, or anyone who has published a map of any kind can vote)
• Best graphical design
• Best playability
• Most original

Even if we don't include those this time, if we have this contest again it might be fun to have some other minor awards other than just 'best overall'.

Oh boy; here comes the debate about voting.  I propose three options.

1. Everyone gets one vote.  Highest score wins.  Ties result in a run-off.
2. Every votes for First, Second, and Third.  First = 5 points, Second = 3, Third = 1.   High score wins.  Ties result in a run-off.
3. Tom decides the voting rules.

I have two questions.  Do voters have to play all maps ..even Simulgear? ..and does playing in a Review game count?

Voters have to play every map (yes, even simulgear - although I don't know what happened to that simulgear map, so that is not currently an issue ).  I guess a review game could count, but I think the people who would play in those are active enough they will probably play in another game also.  I plan on trying to play at least 2 games on each map to get a good idea how they play.

If you read through this thread, Alpha, Raptor & Yertle all liked this suggestion:

Rank the top three scenarios.  1st place gets 3 points, 2nd 2 points, 3rd 1 point.  Scenario with the most points wins.

That's the one I like also, so that's 4 votes for that system.  Since only 6 people finished maps, I think that is the consensus (I'm assuming only the mapmakers with candidates in the contest get a vote on how the voting is done, which seems fair to me).

Ozyman wrote:

Voters have to play every map (yes, even simulgear - although I don't know what happened to that simulgear map, so that is not currently an issue ).  I guess a review game could count, but I think the people who would play in those are active enough they will probably play in another game also.  I plan on trying to play at least 2 games on each map to get a good idea how they play.

If you read through this thread, Alpha, Raptor & Yertle all liked this suggestion:

Rank the top three scenarios.  1st place gets 3 points, 2nd 2 points, 3rd 1 point.  Scenario with the most points wins.

That's the one I like also, so that's 4 votes for that system.  Since only 6 people finished maps, I think that is the consensus (I'm assuming only the mapmakers with candidates in the contest get a vote on how the voting is done, which seems fair to me).

I didn't see that.  I would prefer 5 - 3 - 1 weighting because I would prefer my #1 ranking to have more weight, but I'll deal with it.  -Thanks O.

So... just waiting on Alpha & Yuma's? I'll keep an eye out for them - are they being approved soon?

I saw Alpha's is called "Pangea: Rise of The Chimp." What is Yuma calling his?