Packet feature request: Distribute eval codes for games?

[elysdir]

Someone on LAcon staff suggested a system that might be a big improvement in how we handle eval codes for Best Game finalists. (Not naming them here in case they don’t want their name to be public.) They said they mentioned it to you, and that you had said NomNom seemed like a reasonable place for this. So here’s my proposed system:

1. Each Best Game finalist sends us a set of eval codes—say, 100 of them to start with. (Or any other number they prefer.) (They can instead choose to use their own code-distribution system, but the 2025 finalists who I’ve asked about this proposed system say that they would have liked to use it. And the request for a standardized code-distribution system originally came from one of those finalists.)

2. We put those codes into our system.

3. When a Hugo voter clicks a button to request a code for a given game, our system gives them a code, and removes that code from the list of available codes. (The system doesn’t show them the whole list, it just gives them the next one in the list that hasn’t been claimed yet.) It also keeps track of which Hugo voter requested that code, so that a given voter can’t request more than one code. (If they click the request button again, they just get the same code they were given before.)

4. If the number of codes for a given game in our system falls below a threshold (say, below 20 remaining codes), it notifies the Packet coordinator, who contacts the finalist to ask for another batch of codes. If we haven’t yet reached the limit on the number that the finalist is willing to provide, then the finalist sends more codes and the Packet coordinator adds them to our system.

5. At the close of Hugo voting, the Packet coordinator sends the finalist back all of the codes that haven’t been used. (And a list of all of the ones that have been used.)

Background: We’ve only had a Game category three times, so we’re still figuring out best practices. In 2024 and 2025, we left it up to individual finalists to decide how to handle eval codes (if they wanted to give them out). In most cases, finalists provided an email address to write to, and gave out a code to each person who contacted them. That seemed like a lot of manual work, and not terribly robust. One 2025 finalist tried to build their own website where voters could request codes, but they ran into bugs and had to switch to the email system. So it would be useful to finalists if we could provide some kind of standardized approach for distributing codes, and building that into NomNom seems like it could solve several problems.

…Side note: Another LAcon staff person noted that if we just have a click-to-get-a-code button, some voters might claim a code just because it’s easy, but then not use it; they suggested building a small amount of friction into the process. But I don’t think that’s necessary; I think that if we continue to (truthfully) tell voters that codes are limited and they should only take one if they need it to evaluate the game, voters will probably continue to behave reasonably.