Doctor MJ wrote:OhayoKD wrote:The issue here is the potential pitfalls of this will peak at the vote for #1 when the voter-base and interest will peak. Simply put, if you are only allowing 1-vote, the strategic voting may well just turn into a lebron-jordan flame-war where everyone else gets little focus or dicussion. And in the worst-case scenario where the person whose selected is not the one most people think is greater, there's a decent chance you get something like the kg-kobe incident from way back except times 100 because its the #1 vote.
That is also where non-realgm people's interest peaks, so for posterity, it would probably be neat if all the major candidates got some limelight which allowing 3 votes like they did the last time would garuntee. If anything it might be wise to start with 3-votes and then consider lowering it to 2 or 1 so the entry barrier is lowered at the point where interest subsides. Reducing it from 3 at the point where it's cumbersome to "rank a dozen guys" is probably a better approach to increasing it after-the period where people aren't considering a dozen guys has subsided.
You make an excellent point about the loss of Condorcet accordance will matter the most to folks right at the #1 spot. I've never had a bother about my #1 vote not being one of the top two candidates in the Top 100, but it's going to take away something for others, and I don't like that.
I think folks should chime in here. This makes me think we should consider an optional 2-man ballot for the Inductee vote. (Still not sold on 3 - there's an incremental improvement sure, but the 2 man allows a voter to ensure that they put their #1 at #1, while also allowing them to have a say when their tastes run third party.)OhayoKD wrote:1. Adding any complexity to the voting structure adds time cost to the runner of the project at the very least, and so we must ask why we are demanding this of the runner. It's one thing if the runner himself has a sophisticated voting scheme he wants to try, but some - including myself 17 years after leading my first project on these boards - don't have enthusiasm for it, and it makes them less likely to want to run stuff.
Well, if from what I understand, this is a long-term project which is only done once every three-years, doing things right here is probably more important than doing them quickly.
And maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to enlist some help with the project-running?
The perfect is the enemy of the good. There is no "right" way to do all this. This is also not about speed. This is about overhead cost.
Re: enlist help with project running. Oh I have in the areas that obvious to do so. trex and beast are still mods on this board and we've been in contact about this. In the event I have to step away for a time, I know they'll step in if they can.
But what you're talking about is outsourcing the count on a thread-by-thread basis, and that's problematic. What you want is the next thread to be started and stickied as soon as the old vote is done, and so that either means an automated process, or one person doing one thing and then the next right after.
If folks want to propose an automated process, I'll listen, but I think it's important to remember that we could just have everyone submit their existing lists, press a button, and then look at the aggregate list. I believe this would be far less valuable to the community though. So while I'm not fundamentally against automating any part of the process, I'll tread carefully there.
I would favor the one man ballot. The thing about the 3 man ballot is that the spot you should actually be voting for and theoretically focusing on is something you made a decision on long ago when you were filling out the bottom of your ballot. I think it actually stifles discussion since there’s too broad of a focus, especially if people are writing out reasons for each spot on the ballot. It also has more of a barrier to entry in that there’s more work for the voter to do each round so it discourages casual engagement among those who could just come into each thread, read the arguments for each candidate, and then come to a conclusion. I think it makes for a less collaborative project that way.
If it’s really important for people to not “waste their vote”, I’d prefer just doing a 2-man runoff between the top candidates if the vote is close and there’s no majority. We wouldn’t have to do it every vote. You could even say only in cases where the difference of votes is 2 or less or something. Ultimately I think the original plan is fine too, but I’d push back strongly against 3 man ballots.