Dual Voting for Fellowship.

[Michael O'Brien]

There has been a suggestion that we should try a double vote system.
The first round is open to all suggestions Chris chooses.
The second vote round is for the top 4 or 5 of the first round.
That way if you vote early you can change your vote later on tto affect the final outcome.

[Axel]

It certainly fits in here better, so I repeat my suggestion for a single round weighted voting:

Give every member 50 pts, to distribute freely among all suggestions. Restrict the maximum to 10 pts per miniature, though, and allow for less then 50 pts in total.

If you want to avoid tactical voting, don't publish results until all votes have been cast.

This way you not only get a fair vote in one round, but also an impression how much the other minis are in real demand.

If you are interested I could set up a voting to test this method, using the suggestions you put online in this month. It would run parallel to the real voting in this forum, and be used just to compare the results.

I used a similar procedure to weight teaching quality criterias. Take a look at:
www.tai-rostrup.de/cgi-bin/umfrage/umfragen/umfrage-1.py
and use pb4 to go to the actual vote. Don't worry, you cannot destroy anything by sending the data.
An alternative layout is available at (same log):
www.tai-rostrup.de/cgi-bin/umfrage/umfragen/umfrage-6.py

[Ori]

It looks better this way to me... Lets see how it works

[Michael O'Brien]

puster said:

It certainly fits in here better, so I repeat my suggestion for a single round weighted voting:

Give every member 50 pts, to distribute freely among all suggestions. Restrict the maximum to 10 pts per miniature, though, and allow for less then 50 pts in total.

If you want to avoid tactical voting, don't publish results until all votes have been cast.

This way you not only get a fair vote in one round, but also an impression how much the other minis are in real demand.

If you are interested I could set up a voting to test this method, using the suggestions you put online in this month. It would run parallel to the real voting in this forum, and be used just to compare the results.

I used a similar procedure to weight teaching quality criterias. Take a look at:
www.tai-rostrup.de/cgi-bin/umfrage/umfragen/umfrage-1.py
and use pb4 to go to the actual vote. Don't worry, you cannot destroy anything by sending the data.
An alternative layout is available at (same log):
www.tai-rostrup.de/cgi-bin/umfrage/umfragen/umfrage-6.py

I will see how our double vote system works for Feb and March. If members are interested in trying weighted voting then we will be delighted if you can help set up the system for a trial run in April. It is a system that is not supported by this Forum so we would need to set it up on Mithril itself for an ongoing process and link to it. I will ask Chris and Lars to have a look too.

[Axel]

For the test run we could use my server and simply link to it. The only problem would be verification, but being "test only" and known only to the fellowship, I assume it would be sufficient if every voter simply also adds his forum-login and the result also has a list of the participating members (without the vote).

I will set up an example voting this weekend and send it to you via email, so that you can evaluate its use for the fellowship.