trex_8063 wrote:What follows is just sort of thinking out loud.....
I'm OK with the nomination process, however, I'd be in favour of EXPANDING the nominee pool in the later stages of the list. And this could be done in a pre-determined and structured manner (e.g. something like 5 nominees [as we had] for the first 25 spots; then expand to 6 for #26-50, then 7 for #51-75, and 8 for #76-100 [or something like that; doesn't necessarily have to go as far as eight nominees, but at least more than five]).
Five is a perfect number in the early stages because we're largely all thinking about the same(ish) group of players anyway. But as we get further down the list, opinions get more and more divergent, and then five begins to feel inadequate. I know that I personally had MANY threads where I wasn't enthusiastic about ANY of the eligible candidates (which was frustrating).
It's like another poster said above (while speaking in favour of the nomination process): it keeps things more focused, because otherwise [in past projects] we might have 20 players being discussed at once.
So while he's right that the nomination process is good for keeping things a bit more focused, he's also illustrating my point: that the number [5] just isn't adequate for the stages of the list where opinions are so spread out.
Early on, there are probably only 5-8 guys any of us are thinking about; so five is plenty.
In the late stages, there might be 20+ players we are [collectively] thinking about; five is plenty no longer (and obviously so, imo).
Another thought I had (again, just spit-ballin') was for using a nomination process in combination with some manner of ballot-point system. e.g. suppose with have five candidates [who were nominated], and posters then rank them 1st ballot thru 5th (with an agreed-upon point system, and the points determine the winner); and in later stages if [as I suggested] we have more than five nominees, the players a poster ranks 6th thru X can just be left off [no points].
While I know this allows the greatest degree of manipulation, it also would reduce induction of polarizing candidates who slip by on the support of a handful of posters in a manner that doesn't truly reflect the forum consensus.
e.g. Suppose there are 14 posters voting on a late spot on the list.......Player A is a polarizing figure who 4 people made their top pick and 3 others made him their alternate [total of 7], and that ends up being good enough to win the spot. But of the other seven voters, SIX of them would have him dead-last among the five candidates, and the other would have him 4th/5.
Meanwhile, Player B had 3 posters give him their induction vote, and another 3 give him their alternate [or even just TWO primary induction votes with FOUR alternates, for a total of 6]; but NONE of the other eight posters have him dead-last, and most would have him 3rd/5.
The true consensus of opinion is that Player B > Player A, and under ANY type of point-system [5-4-3-2-1, or 10-7-5-3-1, or whatever] Player B would beat Player A. But Player A ends up taking the spot anyway under the system we used. I do believe there were at least 2-3 threads in this year's project that panned out in just such a manner.
Anyway, that's the system I might suggest for next time: nomination process, but gradually expanding candidate pool, and ballot-point system to determine winner.
Just my opinion ... I don't think nomination necessarily does focus the debate. You still have the same guys in the discussion you just split it between nomination and final vote - as it was taking place in the same thread.
WRT "manipulation" ... it's an open ballot. IIrc, at times people were openly not choosing their preferred choices. I'd argue if one does a chance where one gets to express multiple preferences it makes tactical voting less necessary. I can express my true preference without giving up having a say in the outcome.
You can vote early and set the table for the discussion. You can vote late and have more info and try to be "tactical" ... but if your ranking keeps changing significantly it becomes obvious, people could always sneak in after you and I would think there's a danger that ... presumably if it's tactical you're putting guys outside your true order (say, to create a false gap between your 1 guy and the guy who you might not dislike but think is the closest rival, putting guys you don't actual like as much ahead) there's a non-zero risk you just end up helping the cause of guys you like least. Maybe people could change their ballots ... maybe you'd look to limit that.
Anyway yeah personally I too would be inclined towards a points-y system. Probably without nominations for me. That feels like a needless extra layer. But that's just me.
As ever I'll caveat that there's probably some unintended consequences I haven't thought of.
