Post by twrich on Feb 11, 2006 5:07:08 GMT
OK, the idea of moving to a two-round voting system isn't unanimous. but I believe the merits of doing so lie in fairness to those who make the effort to nominate a suggestion.
Take the month of January as an example. Here are some numbers: A grand total of 59 votes were cast by Fellowship Gold members. There were 28 suggestions nominated. Of those, 19 were selected for the members to vote on. And 5 of the 19 didn't even receive one vote! (perhaps the nominating member saw another idea they liked better, or decided not to "waste" their vote when it became apparent their idea wouldn't win--this might argue for a blind round, at least in the first round). Nonetheless, this makes for 40 votes cast by members who didn't have an idea chosen by Michael and Chris to be voted upon (myself included).
It is clear that member's who have an idea selected for voting are likely to vote for their own idea (14 of 19 in Jan). With a single round of voting, it is those who DON"T have a suggestion in the voting whose votes count most. Almost all of the Jan. votes of those who had a suggestion in the running CANCELED EACH OTHER OUT! I believe that it would be more fair to those who make the effort to nominate an idea, to be able first to vote for their idea, and then once the field was whittled down by the voting members in a blind vote to a manageable number, say the top three (more if ties exits for 3rd place), be able to vote again in an open (non-blind) contest along with everyone for a final winner.
Yes, we can always pass on a selection we don't like (not great for the profits of Mithril, we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs). But I believe that most of us are collectors, and hope one day to own every Mithril miniature sculpted by Chris, even if it has been produced several times before--especially as these Fellowship pieces are very limited in production. And yes, the winner might likely be the same, be it one-round of voting or two. But what if only 3 member votes canceled each other out instead of 14 (or more in a future month) when it came to the final selection? I believe THAT would result in a more fair selection process, and one that would keep members more interested in submitting nominations for a vote.
In the end, perhaps we need to have a comment period and then a member "vote" on whether to modify the voting procedure for the monthly Fellowship selection. Or perhaps Michael and Chris need to discuss this and come to a conclusion. But I see it as an issue of fairness based upon a "human nature" tendency to be glad if one's idea is selected for voting, and then to vote for it in most circumstances. After all, isn't that the point in making a suggestion in the first place; to see it produced by Chris?
What do others think?
twrich (buhman)
Take the month of January as an example. Here are some numbers: A grand total of 59 votes were cast by Fellowship Gold members. There were 28 suggestions nominated. Of those, 19 were selected for the members to vote on. And 5 of the 19 didn't even receive one vote! (perhaps the nominating member saw another idea they liked better, or decided not to "waste" their vote when it became apparent their idea wouldn't win--this might argue for a blind round, at least in the first round). Nonetheless, this makes for 40 votes cast by members who didn't have an idea chosen by Michael and Chris to be voted upon (myself included).
It is clear that member's who have an idea selected for voting are likely to vote for their own idea (14 of 19 in Jan). With a single round of voting, it is those who DON"T have a suggestion in the voting whose votes count most. Almost all of the Jan. votes of those who had a suggestion in the running CANCELED EACH OTHER OUT! I believe that it would be more fair to those who make the effort to nominate an idea, to be able first to vote for their idea, and then once the field was whittled down by the voting members in a blind vote to a manageable number, say the top three (more if ties exits for 3rd place), be able to vote again in an open (non-blind) contest along with everyone for a final winner.
Yes, we can always pass on a selection we don't like (not great for the profits of Mithril, we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs). But I believe that most of us are collectors, and hope one day to own every Mithril miniature sculpted by Chris, even if it has been produced several times before--especially as these Fellowship pieces are very limited in production. And yes, the winner might likely be the same, be it one-round of voting or two. But what if only 3 member votes canceled each other out instead of 14 (or more in a future month) when it came to the final selection? I believe THAT would result in a more fair selection process, and one that would keep members more interested in submitting nominations for a vote.
In the end, perhaps we need to have a comment period and then a member "vote" on whether to modify the voting procedure for the monthly Fellowship selection. Or perhaps Michael and Chris need to discuss this and come to a conclusion. But I see it as an issue of fairness based upon a "human nature" tendency to be glad if one's idea is selected for voting, and then to vote for it in most circumstances. After all, isn't that the point in making a suggestion in the first place; to see it produced by Chris?
What do others think?
twrich (buhman)