Hall of Greats - Voting Process Poll

A positive I see in the allies not being able to vote for their own submission is getting to hear more opinions. For each person you are guaranteed to hear: what they think of their game during the presentation + 3 others during voting.

Hopefully they wouldn't. It could be dangerous to use up votes on unpopular games if it's a tactic that more than one person takes, where possibly a collectively agreed not-so-great game gets in the top 2.

Stuff like that happens all the time. The various sports Halls of Fame have changed their induction rules and voting procedures pretty regularly throughout their respective histories. You have the right to your own opinion, but it's not outside the realm of normalcy for a committee to tweak the way they recognize greatness.

Changing established rules to an induction process for something that already has entries in it doesn't sit well with me. What's next, Patrons bringing the validity of the old Greats into question? IMO Allies should have stuck to their guns and kept the structure the way it was. A little fatigued of flip flopping every time patrons get vocal and cause a stink for things that are largely unimportant, especially when it's about a goofy game show to induct games into something that actually doesn't mean anything. I think bringing a game you absolutely think deserves to win, not being convinced otherwise by the other eight presenters, and then being disallowed to vote on your submission is backwards. But hey, won't stop me from watching HoG and enjoying it. You do you, EZA. We'll see how it shakes out tonight.

Hudson Bilbrey

Not voting for your own game is correct. When Ben didn't vote for his own and Kyle did it cost him. Every one should be freed up to vote for other games. Having to vote for your own just to try and save it doesn't work. The game should stand on its own. Present the game and then let the votes fall where they may.

ComboBreaker

The poll does not reflect the comments at all

I'm personally in favour of "presenter can vote for themself", but the fact that it's so divisive means it's really not worth it. Even if the poll was in favour of "presenter can vote for themself", it wouldn't feel good about it unless it was a landslide. It's a fun rule that doesn't really matter all that much, but if it's divisive, it should be removed.

Andrew Chalmers

Wow.. people really don't want people to vote for the game that they think is the best? This poll is pretty disappointing if they implement this change. We've seen numerous times where the person who brought the game doesn't give their own game 3 points.

Rosamune

The way that the HoG voting works, in that it’s more about the presentation and argument, and not necessarily the game itself, it makes more sense to not be able to vote for one’s own submission.

Brian Denu

what did Pokemon do to you?

The only issue I can think of when it comes to not being able to vote for your own game is a scenario where the person doesn't like or feel any or most of the other games deserve points. I was thinking of maybe some alternative rule where if you feel strongly enough about the game you bring you can put all your votes into it or something along those lines but then again that's kind of messy because that's a lot of points. At the same time it would allow the allies to support their game if they believed it deserved to be in strongly enough, maybe make it so you can only do it once a year or something like that, or even just a one time deal. Just spit balling some ideas here.

Thwap23

SUGGESTION: Reduce to only two votes (1pt and 2pts) and no voting on your own submission. SUGGESTION 2: Give allies the option to withdraw their submission after all presentations are done. Would be allowed to submit the same game again next round ( a way to avoid the penalty if they expect 0 votes).

I think voting for their own submission is a secondary issue. I enjoy these streams very much for the presentations and the interplay between Allies, however for me; if the Allies are able to champion any game of their choosing for merits they must persuade the other Allies are irefutably great then the cross examination needs to be stronger to seperate the submissions. As I remember from previous streams, the Allies are not aware of each other's submissions until they are presented which only allows the duration of the presentation to formulate questions, criticisms and arguments against. As Allies do not have to adhere to a specific set of criteria for their own game selection it would make sense to me, to give the other Allies advance notice of the selections to enable a decent level of rigour in the cross examination and us the viewers a clear indication as to their voting decision. As a Hall of Greats, if the Allies are given free reign to select their submission based on their own sense of what greatness is, I believe there should be a minimum number of votes cast for a submission for true greatness to be awarded and entry given. Yes that does mean that on occassion only one or perhaps no entries will be inducted.

Elliot Moscow

Can’t wait for the HOG Stream, they are amazing. Glad it was delayed so Ian could take part; excited to see what everyone puts forward this tomorrow.

Michael Seaward

Hope you didn't vote in the poll

Swet T.

They should totally be able to vote for themselves if they believe it's the best game of the bunch!

MaxVSTheGames

I think it'd be strange and unrealistic to not let them vote for their own games. They brought them in for a reason, right. Everyone should be able to vote for all the games, otherwise it creates strange results. I don't know how to explain this properly but it just doesn't seem right to force votes away from popular games to other games.

LukeW

You guys are killing me. Shady deals is a fun party of EZA. Let them vote for themselves. If they can't do that this week then I hope alliances form. Makes for good entertainment

M I K E Y M O

I think there’s one simple explanation for why they should not be allowed to vote for their own submissions. Some of them are just too nice. They feel guilty voting for their own or feel guilty about giving it the most points. Not allowing them to vote for them self relieves that burden. The best 2 games will rise to the top regardless

Mattari Jag Wire

Why do we have to change the rules every three months in the first place? Add them on top of each other? I strongly believe we patrons would be fine four times a year without having a say in things. Especially when it's HoG kind of special occasion.

Ville Ranto

I've always been in the camp that allows presenters to vote for their own submissions. But that changed last HOGs. I still can't believe we have Pokemon in the same group with other prestigious titles. It's absurd. Had Kyle not been allowed to vote for his own game, It would've been something else. ANYTHING else. Pokemon has the same merits of being in the HOG, as Minecraft, Candy Crush or Bejeweled.

Kexx

If you change it to no one can vote for there own game then scrap all previous entries into the hall of greats, they're invalid.

My thoughts on this is from the perspective of the presenters game having zero votes. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not their vote counts in this scenario. That game will be banned for the year. So unless this rule changes, it's silly to make a decision on this now.

Wesley

That hasn't changed. They're still voting with the bags, Damiani will tally the votes afterwards.

In the end there is nothing wrong with any of the Allies voting for there own submissions as long as everyone votes with honest critical judgement and no bias. Thus everyone votes for what they think truly belongs in the hall of greats regardless if they vote for themselves or not. Now I realize that is in itself is very difficult for everyone, but at the same time it would allow for the most genuine results to occur. Case in point: everyone voted for "Chrono Trigger" last time because everyone honestly believed that deserved to be in the hall of greats.

Tegan Combatti

Fuck this voting shit.

Ibrahim Sozer

Not voting for your own game means other games get more votes, which means less meaningless ties and a potentially more interesting race for what ultimately wins. Also locks out more titles when games get no votes, which means the pool will shorten and create more entertaining future Hall Of Greats and provide (Hopefully) more passionate presentations.

ZyloWolfBane

confession cam for the win <3

tahitianwarrior

I much prefer the chips in the bag voting. I loved hearing from each person as they voted explaining their reasoning. So much more fun!

Ian Alexander

I totally agree, there are positives and negatives to both voting and not voting for your own submission. The chips in the bag process on the other hand was WAAAAY more fun! Hearing each of their reasoning as they came up was great, and it built a lot more anticipation.

Ian Alexander

I have no comment on voting for one's own game, as I'm fine wither either result, but I have to comment on the voting process. The change to placing chips in bags instead of counting fingers was a significant improvement for the previous stream. Seeing each ally's individual deliberations before placing their votes and the resulting comments they made to chat was one of the highlights of the previous stream. When you say that Damiani is tallying the votes I hope you don't mean you're going back to finger counting, and are still maintaining this individual voting process.

Selarmor

If one of the ally’s presents a game, and at the end of all 9 presentations still believes his nominee is the most deserving of all 9 nominees, then why should they be forced to vote for a game they don’t truly believe is as deserving as their pick? It honestly takes a lot of the fun out of it, and seems needless since none of the allies have tried to game Hall of the Greats; each time they have voted honestly and fairly.

C.D. Hicks

Like I said in a previous post, I want the Allies to vote for what they truly believe is the best game. If the game they brought is the best, then they should be allowed for to vote for their own game. One can game the system regardless of whether you can vote for your submission or not. Allies who vote for their own games get punished anyway if the only votes they receive are their own. The game gets banned for a while.

LeeLore

Some games were decided by a single point (or tied and had to be voted on by patreon), and some games were saved from being suspended by a single point. That matters. True, the game that they bring matters more, but it still matters.

VGJunky

And I agree with the first half of your comment, but I deviate in the second half. Simply because presentations, while entertaining and thoughtful, don't carry the weight many feel they should (myself included), and I know a couple of Allies themselves have gone on record saying the presentations should matter. But presentations are NOT the only aspect of the Hall of Greats. The games themselves also a part of the equation, and as much as Allies try, it's nearly impossible to take complete bias and personal preference out of it when considering any given group of games. Having to select three games, and ordering them as such, is the epitome of preference. I stand by what I said in my first comment: Get rid of the ban rule completely. It alleviates the issue a great deal, but not totally (thus the necessity of weighted presentations)

Brandon K Gann

Here's the problem with that. What goes into the Hall of Greats is a collective opinion. If Don brings a game that not a single other person votes for, it doesn't DESERVE to be there. It doesn't matter if it's banned, because not a single other ally thinks it's worth of consideration.

Josh Read

The goal should be for a presenter to offer up a presentation for the viewers' (the other Allies') consideration. By offering a presentation, they are saying, "I think this game is worthy of being in the Hall of Greats. Do you agree?" The presenter's OWN vote should not be in consideration for that question. They are presenting the game; they already said their piece. The question is whether the VIEWERS of that presentation believe enough to vote for it. If nobody votes for their own presentation's game, and we assume that everybody is bringing a generally great title, we will, without question, get the most unbiased determination of what is the best among them.

Josh Read

Follow up comment: To the point about this should be about presentations, I disagree that it has been up to this point. If presentations really mattered, Mr. Casanova would be four for four in his submissions instead of what's reality. Also, I disagree with the sentiment that not voting for one's own game should allow focusing on praising the other entries. If that's the case, what's the point of bringing anything outside of what can be expeceted on every top games list? At the end of the day, this is about the games. Let's call it for what it is everybody: The Hall of Greats (tm) has been about what games from that evening's selections stand above the rest per an individual Ally's preferences. Only a few times a presentation changed a vote and only by a point when it did.

Brandon K Gann

The way I see it, bringing a game to the Hall of Greats induction ceremony is a "vote" for the game one brings. Whatever somebody brings already believes it is one of the greats and is there specifically to convince others that the aforementioned game is worthy.

While I very much like the approach you are taking.. I feel that the Allies are not equal in that sentiment. Some are more selfish than others, and for that reason, it is best for it to be an even playing field. Oh and if I remember correctly, an Ally wouldn't be saving his own submission if he was the only one voting for it.. so it isn't very nice to see some Allies be very honest amd other just voting for their own submission with 3 points. I still wouldn't mind it as it shows the psychology that and what each ally feels.. but as a fair voting system I think Not voting for own submission is better.

As far as I've been able to tell the allies could definitely be trusted to have the option of voting for their own entry. And as such I feel they should be allowed to vote for the game they truly want to see in the Hall. Now, what I would find interesting if they would put it to the vote if the games should hold up or not. It's so confusing that some allies try to induce games based on nostalgia and historical impact while others fight for games that are timeless and can be played today by a new audience. Last HOTG Huber tried to make sense of it but I don't feel the issue was really resolved. Nice that it was finally addressed though. Personally I feel it would be more interesting if the games had to hold up and be great today. But I understand that it might be unreasonable to demand the allies to distance themselves from their darlings and it might even make the show less entertaining.

YES is the clear answer. The Allies are undeniably honest, and the games they typically nominate are Greats, even if they lose, and as such there is no harm in voting for their own nominees. I sense problems arising if restrictions are placed on a process that is more friendly communal debate than regimented democratic vote.

TurboChickenMan

The Allies influence one another. They aim to give credit to the best formed argument. They should be able to vote for their own submission if they believe it merits the vote over all others. It doesn't make sense to me to not have the ability to vote for your own if you truly believe you put forth a better argument then the rest.

I think the main issue here is putting the allies in a place where there is a conflict of interest. By allowing an ally to vote for their own (with a whopping 3-pointer, especially), it creates an opportunity for gamesmanship (or accusations of gamesmanship) of the voting system. By removing the option, the temptation and the perceived unfairness is removed. It also allows the allies to weigh the other games objectively with no bias toward wanting their game to win, as that is out of their hands by the time voting rolls around.

I also think each ally should have two votes (one per game to be inducted), and that each should be worth the same amount.

every ally giving 3 points to their own game is the same as 0 for their own game, in the total tally.

I think some of the Allies feeling like they shouldn't vote for their own game and some being fine with it throws a massive wrench in the voting. I absolutely believe the fairest method is by not allowing the allies to vote for their own choice.

Josh Read

I think that this would take away a massive part of what makes the voting so interesting.

It's very hard to choose here, because as you say the arguments on both sides are very valid! My inclination is that we should at least TRY not letting the allies vote for their own submissions. I think there's enough angst in these streams without forcing the allies to choose to 'kill their babies' by voting against them. It would also force the person who brings a 'big gun' to spread the voting around a bit, making it a little less likely that a game will be left with no votes.

Samuel Cardwell

Any Ally should vote for their own game. My strongest case is Mr. Casanova. He is the ONLY Ally to have EVERY game he brings be banned since the ban rule has been implemented. It disincentivizes any Ally from bringing a game they feel passionate about and instead select a game that is more of a communally accepted great game as opposed to a game they have personal feelings for. Personally, this goes away ENTIRELY by completely striking the ban rule. Yes, the Hall of Greats (tm) should be an exclusive club, but the Allies can come to a consensus about a game without it being banned. It just may take a long time on its own as opposed a forced sit-out for a year.

Brandon K Gann

I vote yes, for a very complicated reason. Whenever someone has had the option to vote for their own game in the past but has not done so, I feel that that is the embodiment of L&R. I remember in particular getting almost choked by the fact that Don saved Huber's Streets Of Rage 2 submission from being banned with one solitary vote, as Huber had not voted for his own game. Conversely, if nobody can vote for their own game, whilst it ensures all Allies give credit to another's submission only, it's forced. I prefer the voluntary act of kindness of being allowed to vote for your own game, but not doing so. That is the ultimate symbol that you have been convinced by someone else's argument.

Richard G Flowers

No voting for you're own selection, it opens up the voting, makes it more interesting.Keep up the good work EZA.

I votes no, I think it's more interesting that way.

Bokthand

Voting for your own game makes it so nice guys like Ben don't vote for their own game, meanwhile the ruthless Bosmans will strike when they see weakness, tactically abusing its preys weaknesses in order to get games about capturing squirrels or something over robot classics. My point is it can cause controversy ;D L&R

Jeffrey Tessar

In soccer coaches aren't allowed to vote for their own player when it comes to awards. It makes sense for hall of greats too in my opinion.

The whole point is to vote for the 3 games you think most deserve to be in. If three other Allies can't convince you that their games are better than yours, that's on them. Not being allowed to vote for yourself would mean many Allies would likely be giving votes to the game they think is 4th best out of the 9 being presented, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Matt Karwoski

Since their vote can not save a game it shouldn’t even be there. They can use those points to highlight another games

Dale Payne

Sure, I think they can continue the way it's been. There haven't even been that many cases that someone's given their 3 points to their own game. The system has worked just fine so far, a few of them vote for their own games in some capacity every now and then. No harm there.

Ville Ranto

Not voting for their own submission will allow Allies to speak about the strengths of other titles and will make for a more interesting discussion. We already know they love their own game, they spent 5 minutes praising it.

Brandon Ray

The thing about not letting them vote for themselves is that they can potentially lower their own game's chance of winning. Hypothetically speaking, you can use up your votes on unpopular games just so your competition doesn't get more votes from yourself (not saying any Ally would do this though).

It’s a really difficult call and despite the user votes, I think this should be decided by the Allies. Seeing Ben’s excellent case for Mega Man X miss out because he didn’t vote for his own game was kinda hard to see though.

hellsfoxes

I personally think you shouldn't be able to vote for your own game. The entire point is to hear arguments and decide based solely on the merits of the presenters' arguments. To me, the submission itself is a vote and everything else should come down to how convincing the argument for their nomination is. When you're allowed to vote for your own game, it soils the whole process.

Of course you should be able to vote for your own submissions. Hopefully you guys are keeping the "survivor" like voting system you did last time.

Ryan Cassidy

I think it encourages you to make an even stronger case since it will have to succeed by itself once your presentation is over

Their votes don't save a game if it doesn't get enough votes, and for that reason I said...may not.

Presenters should definitely not be able to vote their own game, it encourages them to pay closer attention to other peoples presentations, and it decreases the chances of a game being banned, while also removing the stupid rule of a game that has been voted being banned because the voter was the presentor.

Voting for your own is fine honestly, being swayed by others is what is great about watching. So maybe implement a limit on what you can give yourself, maybe only use the 1 point on yourself, or anything but three.

let people vote for their own games... there's nothing wrong with that... it's the presenters choice on voting for the game that they presented

Daniel Garza Andrade

You should be bringing the game you feel strongest about. If you can't vote for it, or give it the max, then that defeats the whole purpose.

Bradley Spies

I agree with this. Gives that change of heart more weight. So the games that do win because of something like that shows how great the winner is.

I think you should be allowed to vote for your own game, but you probably shouldn’t be able to give it three points

Jeremy Pick

If they can vote for their own submission, it means more when they vote for someone else’s.

Michael Wilson