That's what I meant. I don't think there's a "normal routine" that everyone is aware of. I don't see a reason why it would be linear.
Imho it would have been better to annouce the routines before.
I'm afraid it's impossible for anyone to second guess what you might or might not be thinking, but, yes, numbered lists without further clarification are usually counted evenly, that's not even weird or something anyone else would second-guess about.
It is also extreme minutiae.
And yes, people are aware of what routines they are choosing when they vote, because they are voting exactly how they want to vote, not how they imagine Morrandir is thinking they are voting.
Which begs the question, why are you determined to find a reason to debase the legitimacy of the vote before it's even begun and before anyone even knows if numbering will even make any difference to the vote-count method anyway?
You previously posted that "if XYZ is going to be how it's counted then I'll probably change my vote" [paraphrase], which is possibly the reason why you're so intent in trying to establish the vote-count methodology: Because you seem to have imagined /assumed so much prior to voting, when the instructions were plain and evident to begin with:
Imagine your own personal Games of the Decade list and PM it to lackblogger.
If you're list changes dependent on the rules then I guess I can see why this instruction is so hard for you to come to terms with as this instruction is followed by the phrase "there are no rules".
So I don't think it's an issue with everyone else's end, I think the issue you have is one only you can solve for yourself, internally.
Can you find a way to not care about rules and just write a list of games that you particularly liked over the last decade? Can you manage that without having the need to specifically min/max each specific choice?
I'm confident good things will to those who wait 
