The UK Babe Channels Forum

In the light of recent comment and events regarding Ultimate Babe I have felt duty bound to pass comment.
At this point it is important to stress that what appears below are NOT definitive solutions. They are merely my ideas. Those ideas are not without flaw, indeed I myself could pick holes in them. I feel sure someone somewhere could come up with indestructable formats given the time.

Firstly with specific regard to the Sophie-Beth tie.
The proposed solution of a one day play off was one I made privately to winsaw prior to the end of the preliminary round.
Understandably because the comp had already started this solution was deemed to be one that was appropriate for use in future years rather than this one. Winsaw had decided to use the coin toss method as per previous years.
Unfortunately a tie came to pass for qualification. The coin toss was deployed.
Obviously this caused some consternation and I understand that.
In future years this can hopefully be avoided by use of a one day play off for two way ties and a one day poll for ties involving more than two contenders.
This being on the assumption that the nomination round with all nominations set to equal value remains in place.

Secondly I move to the objective of trying to avoid ties in the opening phase of voting.
The way I have tried to do this is to operate a points based system for a top 6 or top 8 or top whatever number. So for example in a top 8 it would be 8 points for 1st down to 1 point for 8th. If tied on points then number of 1st then 2nd then 3rd etc place finishes would decide the outcomes. I do this to enable less possibility of ties with countback mechanisms to resolve them as far as possible.
One key problem with all nominations equal to the same value is that there is no possibility of a countback mechanism at all thereby producing need for an extra play off round as has been required this year in Ultimate Babe.
I do understand the argument as to what happens if people only list a top 1 or 2 or 3 rather than a top 8 to give their favourites the biggest possible advantage over those perceived to be a threat to their favourite winning.
The possible solution to this is proportional points allocation system detailed in the linked post below.
https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...id2170237.

Thirdly I move to what happens once the qualifiers for the knockout phase become known. At this point the next question becomes do you use a fully seeded draw, partially seeded draw or fully random draw?
In my time running comps on here I have used all three methods.
If total, absolute and complete transparency is desired then a fully seeded draw has to be the way forward with the seed number totals adding up to the same amount in each half of the draw.
So for example with 8 qualifiers the draw would look like this.

1 v 8
4 v 5
-------------
3 v 6
2 v 7

1+8+4+5 = 18
3+6+7+2 = 18

Random draws are not independently verifiable which in the eyes of the more suspicious leads to doubt.

In random draws done I have put numbered pool balls into a bowl with each babe given a number relevant to the position qualified in.
Or alternatively drawn names on folded pieces of card out of a bowl.
But obviously nobody could see me doing it .

Now I move to the fourth issue. The knockout phase and specifically how to resolve ties in the knockout phase. If using my points based system then the babe that qualifies with more points wins. If still tied then it goes to number of 1st then 2nd then 3rd place nomination round finishes.
In the unlikely event of an ABSOLUTE TIE then a one day contingency playoff would occur taking different forms according to which knockout round it is.
Below is the summary.

If the tie is in the first knockout round:
Put each babe in a one day playoff against the best non qualifier. Whichever babe performs better against that non qualifier goes through whether it be by result or by margin of victory or defeat.

If the tie is in the semi final:
Find the best performing losing quarter finalist. Put each of the tied babes into a 1 day playoff against that babe. Whichever babe performs better against that losing quarter finalist goes through to the final whether it be by result or by margin of victory or defeat.

If the tie is in the final:
Put each finalist in a 1 day playoff against the opposite semi finalist they played in the semi finals.
Whichever finalist performs better wins whether it be by result or by margin of victory or defeat.

And after all that pile of gobbledygook I'm off for a lie down .

I only got past the 2nd paragraph and i went cross eyed

^ How do you think I feel having typed such detailed nonsense?

I think the Queen Of Babestation should be changed to a random draw knockout format seems more fairer and the main awards are all under a knockout format , of course eyres runs that so that is up to him and it's more refreshing to as the rules have been the same for the last 3 years.

I know that wasn't what you was talking about Snookered but the clue is in your thread name competition formats so that's why i went on about the Queen Of Babestation.

But seriously that is how i would run the Queen Of Babestation if i was running it.

Oh and by the way when i one day run a main award i promise you i won't be having my favorites against an easy opponent in order for them to get though i don't work that way as you guys know when i ain't running it i don't send my favorites though against somebody i don't like it i base my votes on their performances though out the year so if my favorite was against someone i don't like but they have been performing better i am willing to put them though over my favorite.

That's very honest of you KM, but the majority of people won't vote for someone they don't like, so you may as well just be biased like the rest of us

I know Winsaw likes Beth and Sophie, but he likes Beth more, just as i like my bigger faves more than my lesser faves
and the same probably applies to most people, of course i'd vote for my 12th favourite girl if she's up against someone i don't like in the final though

Personally i don't agree with random draws cos the main contenders rarely seem to meet in the earlier rounds, seeded draws are fairer even though the higher seed usually goes through anyway, its a popularity contest at the end of the day, its not a sport where the underdog wins sometimes

My 2 cents on the format issue.

I ran my first competition, probably the smallest of all comps with the fewest number of votes which was a bit disappointing but never mind that, Daytime Empress of Xpanded.

My system was:

Nomination Round - nominate up to 5 babes with each nomination counting as 1 point.

Final Round - top 2 scorers went into a run off, if more than 2 finished level on points at the top of the table then all scorers would go into a run off, so it could have 3, 4 or 5 babes scoring the same amount of points (highly unlikely)

If there was a top scorer and then more than 1 babe level in 2nd place then the top scorers and all 2nd place scorers would have gone into the final run off, so possibly 2, 3 or 4 babes scoring the same in joint 2nd place (again unlikely)

I felt this was a fair way of doing it as there was no coin toss or play offs to whittle down the contenders, all level scorers were treated exactly the same.

Anyway if I run competitions again in the future they will all follow this format (depending on the competition the number of babes to nominate in the 1st round may increase) as I find its the most efficient and fair way of doing so.

Im just gonna have a nominations round and then a poll for my competitions next year quick and easy

Well written as ever snookered but I don't feel it covers the biggest issue in the yearly votes and that's tactical voting, tried a number different things to counter this, but the only one to really work is a random vote in round 2 as there is no way they can know who the girl they want to win is going to get, I like the idea of basing it on seeding but it dose need people to vote fairly, I think one way to do this is if someone submit less names than has been asked for then that vote is not counted as this stops some of the pushing one girl only , one thing is for sure this years ultimate babe has shown some interesting questions and thankfully some answers,

As I've already said, the Ultimate Babe needs looking at. Either keep the criteria the same and call it Ultimate Nightshow Babe, or keep the name and make it open to all comers.
"This is the way it's always been" is no excuse for discrimination. Imagine if it was the other way round and we had the Ultimate Nightshow Babe contest, and an Ultimate Babe contest only open to day babes.

And just to be clear, this not a criticism of the actual running of the comp. Joey is bang out of order with his match-fixing allegation.

(13-12-2019 14:04 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]Well written as ever snookered but I don't feel it covers the biggest issue in the yearly votes and that's tactical voting, tried a number different things to counter this, but the only one to really work is a random vote in round 2 as there is no way they can know who the girl they want to win is going to get, I like the idea of basing it on seeding but it dose need people to vote fairly, I think one way to do this is if someone submit less names than has been asked for then that vote is not counted as this stops some of the pushing one girl only , one thing is for sure this years ultimate babe has shown some interesting questions and thankfully some answers,

Tactical voting can happen whatever format is used and in any round.
For example in knockout rounds one might decide to consistently vote against all those perceived to be a threat to their favourite winning.

I believe the proportional points allocation system in the linked post below goes to good lengths in limiting the effect of tactical voting in the nomination round using a points system. It is imo impossible to eradicate ALL tactical voting in all rounds.

https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...id2170237.

The trouble with invalidating lists of names less than the specified amount is that the tactical voting allegation cannot be definitively proven. It may be that people honestly only have a limited number of babes they like enough to nominate. They may have cause in that situation to dispute the fairness of their voice not being heard at all rather than to a restricted degree as I have suggested in the linked post above.