AEnigma wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:iggymcfrack wrote: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.
Yeah I'm with you here. I find that when my writing focus is placed somewhere other than the #1 on my list - because the #1 write-up was done a while ago - I don't tend to spend time really chewing on other people's points about the #1. Yes, they're unlikely to sway me on my #1, but if they're making good points about their #1, I'll tend to miss those and thus maybe miss the thing that would sway me to move them, say, from #3 to #2.
I'd like to be able to focus on my decision point.
And what happens if, with a one-person ballot, your #1 is not voted in? And then continues not being voted in? What more are you contributing?
To me it almost seems like what you specifically
want is for no one to “vote third party” as it were and to instead stick to assessing the two plurality candidates at each spot. I do not see that as especially enjoyable, encouraging, or likely to make people consider a move “from #3 to #2” — because there are no #3s or #2s, just a mostly binary choice between players who may well be your own #6 and #7. And I will also reiterate that deliberately manufacturing polarity seems guaranteed to stoke “negativity” when the default frame of every round would be “which of these two players is better than the other”.
Past all that, people are definitely going to be stuck
nominating the same name for multiple rounds at a time. And that is fine so long as they are not simultaneously stuck between either doing the same for their real ballot or passively choosing between pairs until their real #1 becomes viable, but the smaller you make the inputs, the more likely that stasis becomes. When it was three votes, you could see some people repeating the same three names round after round, but it was rarer than if they only had one name on their list.
As it is now, people will miss most of their
strong “decision points”. I will not have the same energy deciding between Shaq and Wilt for #6… or Shaq and Magic at #7… or Magic and Bird at #8… as I would for Hakeem at #6, and by the time we get to Hakeem or Bird at #9, that Hakeem at #6 energy is going to have faded a lot, because I would have made that decision two weeks ago. Most of the time, the focus will not be on our #1. It might be on our #3 or #4 while our #1 languishes. In a sense that makes the project more accessible, but I am not sure the votes themselves will be more insightful.
So first, to be clear, partially based on your own arguments, I'm leaning toward a 2-man induction ballot. There's things I don't like about it, but I think the points raised have swung me.
Re: What more are you contributing when you keep voting for your #1 over and over again?
This type of concern is super-important to what we're talking about.
Adding a 2nd spot on the ballot helps in the case where you're significantly divergent from the group on one guy.
Adding a 3rd spot on the ballot helps in the case where you're significantly divergent from the group on two guys.
etc, etc.
In the end we either have to set a limit, or we have to let people list out indefinitely for instant runoffs. I've said I'm not doing instant runoffs or the like, so it's just a question of limit.
I think there's a lot to like about how having as small of a ballot as possible, and 1 is the smallest number.
But the thing that's nice about 2 is that you know what that 2nd spot is for. It's 1 of the 2 guys you think will be the leading vote getter. And if you're not particularly concerned about it, you don't have to worry about it.
Finally I'll point back to the Nomination process. Having a Nominee List means that in the Induction vote, it's going to be a thing if you're voting for a guy more times than there are men on the ballot. Not saying it won't happen, but it will be noticed by people, and eventually the guy you're voting for will get in unless you're talking about guys at the very end of the 100.
Your Nomination vote on the other hand could well end up naming the same guy 40 times if your views diverge enough from the group, but that won't mean your Induction input will be stuck still too.
Re: "like I want no one to vote 3rd party". Not at all. Listen, I'll just say: I'm literally planning to vote for a guy at #1 who I think has no chance at being in the top 2 in vote getting, and I had no worries about that. With the plan put forth for a 2-man ballot, now I'll pick 1 of the 2 guys I expect to be top contenders in the #2 spot on my ballot and I'll get to have more say on the outcome, and that's nice, but I'd have been just fine if that was decided without me.
I think it's less important that Player A is getting Spot X than it is that the gospel of Player A as an all-timer gets heard.
Re: spent energy by nomination process. I would see it instead as an opportunity continued discourse. It's true that most debates don't end up flipping the assessment of the debaters, but for the gallery it can allow for a greater deepness where there is depth to be plumbed.