lol, all you have is doubters. The delusion in your posting -> you are completely out of touch with Bort

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478558)

Robotic spam about price changes, ICOs, gains/losses etc. is not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478702)

Don't worry. The best posters will make it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478594)

Low seeds for prior semifinalists ensures they will have to make it on merit.

Forced content creation should be entertaining.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478707)

Rest assured, decisions will be unfailingly consistent with the spirit of the board and everyone will have an equal voice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478687)

Just limit voting to known unique posters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478641)

Stay tuned for Friday's exciting announcement, which will put all doubts to rest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34478796)

Last year more than a few great poasters who probably would have pwned in other sections of the draw got arbitrarily stuffed into evan39s section and got steamrolled either by evan or each other, while mediocre poasters went far in the weak sections.

The best thing would be to seed the fucking tournament accurately and even out talent across all the sections, but if that's impossible this may be the next best thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479525)

edit: see below

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479556)

If My Dog feels too busy though I'd be willing to help in improving the nominations/seeding process.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479695)

a whitelist of permitted sudo voters, providing a particular voting format, and giving a firm open and close time for voting pretty much solves every partiality issue.

the only cheating that can happen is when bullshit like the above is suggested.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479716)

Creating the "whitelist" sounds like a difficult ordeal but maybe I'm overstating the difficulty. Glancing at last year's voting, it looks like MPM has really been almost entirely sudos voting, but I'm worried that could change this year with rach giving away all those alts lately and such.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479869)

all 128 contestants last year are automatically whitelisted, under their known monikers only. that's thread #1. that's more just informing people. no real solicitation of opinion required.

new poasters, added to 2017's MPM using the consensus of XO plebs (using the suggested tiers or whatever), are also whitelisted. that's thread #2--who should be in it this year?

by now you have a whitelist of 128 (last year's) + new contestants who can vote.

thread #3, to be posted at least a week or two before voting--petition here to be added to the voting whitelist. that way, old dogs who happen to be around but aren't competing anymore can go under their known monikers and ask to be included. new guys who aren't yet known enough for MPM but want to be included can be. and if it's just someone's alt, i'm sure autists will comment and say "not this guy, it's just WMTP." that will be, i think, pretty much the only time you have to exercise any judgment on the matter.

not that tough, no?

that's about it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479962)

or, perhaps to save work, the people running MPM should offer their list of 128 sudos and suggested tiers - great, good, or okay, roughly corresponding with seeds of 1-8, 9-16, and 17-32 or so - and solicit input from poasters about whether poasters are in the approximately correct tiers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479698)

the process last year was to vote over who got the top four seeds in each bracket, as though the specific seeds were important, and then everyone else was just scrambled around. the specific seeds really don't matter even at the top, just the tiers.

whoever runs it should come up with a top tier of 16, second tier of 16, third tier of 32, and then fourth tier of 64 (or two more tiers of 32). publish the tiers, people critique them, and they're adjusted as needed. seeds are then assigned based on those tiers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479758)

the only potential issue is that you wind up approximating voting itself with certain methods, which is why you want to be pretty coarse with the designations. 3 tiers seems like enough, and 4 is certainly enough.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479787)

The top 16 seeds or so are probably the most important to get right, so we could have posters straight-up pick 10 or 16 posters they think belong up top, and seed based on who gets the most votes. Not sure how we'd handle the lowest seeds, though. Should it be based on nominations (i.e. put the most-hated posters the lowest) or on indifference (i.e. pick people who aren't nominated for higher seeds)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479769)

I don't want some Council of Pisa shit where we try to fix the MPM schism by just creating a new schism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479905)

I tell you that you are Charles, and on this rock I will build my contest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479974)

the issue with seeding last year was that good seeding was extremely arbitrary, so in some brackets you had two very good posters matched up in the early rounds knocking each other out while mediocre posters cruised through for a few rounds in other brackets

if you're replacing the top posters with "next-best" posters at top seeds then you're just institutionalizing this problem. good posters be matched up against each other early and will knock each other out while the mediocre posters ranked in between them will coast through for a while

seeding should be standard. top posters at top spots, lower posters beneath them. worse posters exit earlier and top posters still inevitably face each other once the field is narrowed so nobody is getting a "free pass" just by being seeded at the top. people stick around for as long as they should.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34479588)

Look on the bright side, you can compete this year! Though I suggest you request a slot in the qualifying pre-tournament, tbh. You're a longshot to make the main bracket outright.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3768569&forum_id=2#34482024)