|
Post by Hermes on Apr 21, 2015 13:45:51 GMT -5
is anka's 'each pair of people of can only be nominated once in the groups' rule still happening? because thats the only problem i have with any of this I never said that. I only said groups which are included in other groups might be unnominated if there are too many nominations for a poll. But that turned out to have some problems, so we are trying to find a better way to make it not too many nominations and at the same time keep it fair for everyone by letting everyone be nominated in about the same amount of groups. There was the idea to either limit the number of groups a person can be nominated in, or the number of groups each person can nominate. Could we not just limit the number of nominations by asking people to be sensible? And I don't understand the other bit. If there were just three nominations, one for Pandora, Betsy and Pen, one for Pandora and Linda, and one for me and Dante, are you saying that would be ruled unfair because Pandora had been nominated twice and the rest of us only once?
|
|
|
Post by Kit's tits kick ticks on Apr 21, 2015 13:53:53 GMT -5
I actually thought of a way for the nominations: Everyone can make as many nominations as they want, but they have to be ordered and numbered by priority. Then when a poll is made, everyone's number 1 nomination goes there first, then everyone's number 2 nomination and so on, until it's too many to fit into a poll. If people are still sensible, they make it all a lot easier though.
About the unfairness thing: It wouldn't be unfair if one person is just nominated less than another person. But it would be unfair if there are 2 people and each of them has 5 nominations, and then before there is even a pre-voting 4 of the groups including the first person are taken out and only one of those including the second person.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 21, 2015 14:03:38 GMT -5
Well, I don't think that's likely to be a problem. Pen is right; we only have about six regular posters anyway, so there probably won't be many nominations.
But in any case, I don't think it is unfair. The award isn't for the group that contains the best people; it's for the group that goes together best. At least, that's how it was always understood when it was best pairing (though of course 'go together' has to be understood in a rather broad sense, including enemies), so it should be the same if it's extended to wider groups. So whether a particular person gets on the final ballot or not shouldn't be a primary consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 21, 2015 17:52:01 GMT -5
I really would like to know what people think about 'Best Volunteer'. I'm suggesting it as a way to end the conflict, so if people hate it as much as they hate 'Most Lemony', there's no point in going on with it.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Apr 21, 2015 18:24:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I like it
|
|
|
Post by soufflé on Apr 21, 2015 18:31:12 GMT -5
i can dig it hermes
but i'm so serious about most desperate for a darkie!! it should be on the poll
|
|
|
Post by penne on Apr 21, 2015 18:42:13 GMT -5
yeah, just imagine how grateful the winner will be!
|
|
|
Post by Kit's tits kick ticks on Apr 22, 2015 0:02:27 GMT -5
but i'm so serious about most desperate for a darkie!! it should be on the poll You could have suggested it as special category then. I forgot to make the Most Lemony poll yesterday. I will just do that now. Nobody said anything about Best Volunteer, so I will just include it. It doesn't really make a difference. Also I hope there aren't still suggestions missing. This thread is so full that it's kind of difficult to find the things I need.
|
|
|
Post by soufflé on Apr 22, 2015 5:17:03 GMT -5
I did that twice
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 22, 2015 5:48:24 GMT -5
But you mentioned it only in this thread, not in the Special Category thread. (Also, you have to give a reason why it's especially relevant to this year.)
Going back to Best Group; I think I'd be OK with it if you couldn't nominate groups you are in. That actually fits what we do now; people don't nominate themselves for single-person awards, and they don't usually nominate pairings they are in for Best Pairing. That way we could nominate groups that we thought were good together, like the three most compassionate people, or, say, the Australians, or if there were a multi-person romance I'm sure lots of people would be happy to nominate it, just as they are with two-person romances now. But we can't nominate our group of friends, which I think would change it into something completely different. And in that case I don't think overlapping groups would matter, any more than overlapping pairings do now, because people would be nominated in different groups for different reasons.
And in case of too many nominations; in the olden days it wasn't normal to make more than one nomination per category; there was even some uncertainty whether than was allowed. That may seem too severe, but I think it would be OK to limit it to two nominations each. That way 17 and a half people would have to nominate before a category was full, and I don't think we have 17 and a half people here at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Kit's tits kick ticks on Apr 22, 2015 7:30:14 GMT -5
Nominating yourself is generally frowned upon, but it happens. Mostly in PM nominations. I think it would be cool if we frowned upon that in that category too, but I don't know if we can just make a rule for that. I think it's a good idea though, because if there is an outstanding friendship between some people, I'm sure someone else would nominate it.
Generally making more than one nomination per category is okay I think. As long as they are all sensible.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 22, 2015 7:57:06 GMT -5
Well, I think it might be a good idea to make it a rule in this category. It's rather obvious that if I said 'I think I am the most valued poster' or even 'I think I am the most Lemony/best volunteer/most S.A.D./whatever', people would frown on it. (Perhaps if I said 'I am the most notorious' that would be more acceptable.) Whereas if I said 'I think that Dante, cwm and I are the best group', that wouldn't look obviously unacceptable, it would just be group loyalty, which is often seen as a a good thing. But I think it would still distort the awards.
(I'm now wondering who these people are who nominate themselves in PM's.)
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Apr 22, 2015 9:01:22 GMT -5
but seriously charlie, dont ever change, i love you and the way you ship everyone/everyone else regardless of preference, interest or logic. (p.s., panarlie 2015 best pairing.) I was cranky for like one second, but you uncranked me like instantly yay. And I wasn't even cranky anyway bc I could never be cranky at you <3 I'm Most Desperate For A Darkie. I will fight long into the bitter night (not in best writing tho obvi lol). Speaking of this tho, we could make it a non-official Darkie. Like a Darkie that's still voted on and nominated in and stuff, but not official or anything #desperate Also, I really think people will be sensible about Best Gathering of Somehow Linked Individuals. I'll be sensible. Sorry about last year, didn't realise I caused drama oops. Maybe if you put "be sensible" in the nominations title people would be sensible.
|
|
|
Post by soufflé on Apr 22, 2015 9:24:08 GMT -5
But you mentioned it only in this thread, not in the Special Category thread. (Also, you have to give a reason why it's especially relevant to this year.) I actually did mention it in that thread if you go look And it's relevant because it's funny
|
|
|
Post by Kit's tits kick ticks on Apr 22, 2015 9:49:24 GMT -5
Not until the poll was already made.
|
|