Moderator: Moderators
Linux Rocks.
I must be a cat, for sure.mormon boy51 wrote:Curiosity killed the cat but...
)
Yeah but i didnt know he joined this year, lol. Plus I think he wouldnt mind letting someone else have rookie of the year if he gets best debater....Lucia wrote:I must be a cat, for sure.mormon boy51 wrote:Curiosity killed the cat but...
How come you voted for CB for best debater but not for rookie? If you consider him the best debater and he joined this year, wouldn't it follow that he's also Rookie of the year?
(Sorry if I'm being nosey, I do that sometimes
You didn't notice I was one of the choices?mormon boy51 wrote: Yeah but i didnt know he joined this year, lol. Plus I think he wouldnt mind letting someone else have rookie of the year if he gets best debater....
Im not perfect! Sorry...I wonder if its like this every year though?ChaosBorders wrote:You didn't notice I was one of the choices?mormon boy51 wrote: Yeah but i didnt know he joined this year, lol. Plus I think he wouldnt mind letting someone else have rookie of the year if he gets best debater....
And Cnorman has a pretty commanding lead on best debater, so I don't think I'll hold my breath on that one. Just one behind Winepusher on Rookie right now.
Like what?mormon boy51 wrote: Im not perfect! Sorry...I wonder if its like this every year though?
I wonder if there are always a bunch of people who deserve the award!ChaosBorders wrote:Like what?mormon boy51 wrote: Im not perfect! Sorry...I wonder if its like this every year though?
I don't know, but if I remember to I'm going to suggest changing the voting structure next year. Splitting the vote as much as it is makes it a lot harder to guarantee that the person who wins is the one the most people think is the stronger debater.mormon boy51 wrote:I wonder if there are always a bunch of people who deserve the award!ChaosBorders wrote:Like what?mormon boy51 wrote: Im not perfect! Sorry...I wonder if its like this every year though?
I see what your saying, so maybe like a couple rounds of votes to narrow it down to 2?ChaosBorders wrote:I don't know, but if I remember to I'm going to suggest changing the voting structure next year. Splitting the vote as much as it is makes it a lot harder to guarantee that the person who wins is the one the most people think is the stronger debater.mormon boy51 wrote:I wonder if there are always a bunch of people who deserve the award!ChaosBorders wrote:Like what?mormon boy51 wrote: Im not perfect! Sorry...I wonder if its like this every year though?
Like say there's fifteen votes. Five of them think person A is the best, person B the second best, person C is the third best, person D is the fourth best, and person E is the worst.
Four of them think person A is actually the worst, person B the best, person C is the second best, person D is the third best, and person E is the fourth best.
Four of them think person A is the third best, person B the second best, person C is the best, person D is the fourth best, and person E is the worst.
Two of them think person A is the fourth best, person B the second best, person C is the third best, person D is the best, and person E is the worst.
Person A ends up winning, even though twice as many people think person B is a better candidate.
Yeah. I think it'd be more fun too because then people get to vote more than once. If they have three or four rounds over the course of the month, people who want to vote would have to check in like once a week.mormon boy51 wrote: I see what your saying, so maybe like a couple rounds of votes to narrow it down to 2?
There is no perfect democracy...I really think this would be up to Otseng because the suggested newer system would require more of his time and he is already very busy...ChaosBorders wrote:Yeah. I think it'd be more fun too because then people get to vote more than once. If they have three or four rounds over the course of the month, people who want to vote would have to check in like once a week.mormon boy51 wrote: I see what your saying, so maybe like a couple rounds of votes to narrow it down to 2?
My suggestion would be that the first week cuts it down from 10 to 5.
Then the second week from 5 to 3.
The the third week from 3 to 2.
And the final week of the year you have a run-off between the top two.
There is still the potential of having an American Idle dilemma where the stronger candidate doesn't get voted for because people assume others will and want their second favorite to make it to the next stage. But given you can actually see how many votes each person has before casting your own, I think that is at least somewhat unlikely. So even in a worse case scenario the second or third strongest candidate should win.
Unlike the current system, where you could easily end up with the fourth or fifth strongest candidate winning because that have a vocal minority who actually thinks they're the best, even if the general consensus of everyone else would be that there are several stronger candidates.
(Actually in theory, under the current system, a candidate could win with a minority of the vote even if every other single voter thought they were the absolute worst possible candidate just because all of their votes got split between stronger candidates).
