@GameDevDan
I might be misunderstanding Nightfrost, but they may have been meaning that if someone just rates 3 games, not the full 36, those 3 votes only count for low points, because that person didn't play the rest, so their vote is unfair and should count for less.
As in, if they only rank 3 games, their 1st place vote is counted as 1/(34+1), 2nd place is 1/(35+1) etc. As though they ranked the games as 34/36, 35/36, and 36/36.
If someone only played 3 games for example, my game, Britskreig and ALPS, and they rated them #1, #2 and #3 respectively, that would be an unfair vote.
They might have voted my game #1, which gives me a ton of points, but it absolutely doesn't mean I made a good game. Alice for example, rated my game middle of the pack, which means although she thinks my game is better than 50% of the entries, she put it quite far down the list, so it doesn't really give me any points. Had she only played 10 games, not all 36, I would have potentially placed 1st, had the other 9 she played have been in the lower half of her ranking.
Having 2 people play 3 games, and those 2 people both happen to play my game, gives me a huge advantage, is what I'm saying haha. If I get ranked in their top 3 just because mine was one of the only games they played, I won by default, not because it was the best game.
TL;DR, unless the vote contains all entries, or the voter makes it clear all games were played, the vote shouldn't count, as it's unfair.