The recent discussion (see comments) about the Counter Hall of Fame brought up some good points.
"What should the criteria be for a Hall of Fame game?" The main page describes games as "Modern Classics" that have "Stood the test of time."
Well, first of all ... "standing the test of time" should be at least a decade. Five years isn't enough. (I'm judging that based on the fact that nominees for next year's ballot had to be published by sometime in 2001). First of all, the extra time will allow everyone to painlessly winnow out games. For a game published in 2001 (if I missed it early), I may not have seen it until 02 or 03. [There are probably a dozen games from last Essen/Nuremburg that I still haven't tried that I want to]. If I only got to play it once or twice, I may still be very attached to the novelty. "Novelty" and "Modern Classics" don't mix. An extra five years cooling off period would help.
But more than that, instant runoff voting is ... inappropriate. If Titan is a modern classic, that doesn't make Ursuppe (or whatever) any more or less a classic. Naming a game (or two) per year is wrong. Imagine if the Literary Hall of Fame added one work per decade. We'd have a century backlog after Shakespeare. And a lot of mediocre works from the 1400s. Instant Runoff voting makes more since when you have to have a winner (like an elected office) [Although see my sidenote below].
So I think you have to vote each game up or down on it's merits. You can have a slightly loose nomination system, which will allow you to spread the word on a few more games ("It's an honor to be nominated") and allow for controversy. Then you have a strict criteria. (Say, 75% "yes" votes). If a game gets voted down one year, it can always be renominated (perhaps skipping a year or decade after a few failed attempts).
There's no perfect system (Damn you, Arrow!) but I'd like something like that better.
Non-gaming sidenote -- Eugene Volokh once had a "Propose a constitutional amendment" contest. My entry was mandating that "None of the above" be a valid choice on every federal ballot. If "NotA" won (a plurality), then that seat would remain empty, and would automatically vote against any changes to existing law. If the presidency were empty, it would veto every bill passed. [Sadly, there are lots of tricky cases that would have to be worked out].
Related Posts (on one page):
- Hall of Fame
- Counter/Sumo Hall of Fame voting
I have a lot more sympathy for your contention that preference voting is inappropriate for this venue. I do NOT like the fact that exactly two games must be voted in each year. In fact, I was one of those who successfully argued with Stuart Dagger that Medici be allowed in the same year as Settlers and El Grande (all three games got extraordinarily strong support). My initial alternative was the same as yours: a yes/no acceptance ballot and all the games (if any) that meet the threshold get voted in. We even did this as a non-binding test for a couple of elections. Stuart's objection to this (which I admit has merit) is that this favors the games with broad coverage too much. Games like Elfenroads and Funkenschlag, which a reasonable number of voters haven't had the chance to play, would be unduly discriminated against. I've come up with other suggestions, but they've become increasingly complex, giving me less and less confidence that they would work. I still think that there's a better way of doing things (perhaps a two-stage preference/acceptance voting procedure), but right now, the current method is sound enough to go along with.