|
Post by almightyarceus on Feb 9, 2011 19:27:58 GMT -5
Many people have been subtly discussing the issue of competitors voting for themselves in competitions, calling it unfair--especially when they win because they voted for themselves. TGH and I have been discussing this, and he also says Larx, LugiaDialga, and others view this as an issue as well. Because of this, I propose a resolve to this minor issue so that it will not escalate ever and never really be a problem. I propose that those who submit a song to a competition such as SotW should be banned from voting for the week in which they enter. Or at least, they should not be able to vote for themselves. I want to know how severe you all think this rule should be. I'm sure most competitors would be okay with not voting (at least for themselves, anyways.) I know I would. There was talk of a solution by having everyone disclose who they voted for. But truly, that defeats the purpose of an anonymous vote. By simply banning the competitors from the vote, we can protect the voter's privacy and the sanctity of the vote as well as make each voting session 100% fair. Let me know what you guys think in the comments below.
|
|
|
Post by WherewolfTherewolf on Feb 9, 2011 19:33:10 GMT -5
I hadn't been voting in the competitions anyway But I question the amount of voters we will have if none of the competitors vote, that'd work if it was a large enough community, but atm it's still developing and thus I think the max amount of voters we'd get is around 5 or 6 (without the enteries).
In competitions when we have around that number of entries anyway, a winner would be determined by 1 or 2 votes - thus note much of a decisive victory.
How about you split the preliminaries into a few sub preliminaries with separate voting? Basically instead of 1 big one you'd have 2 or 3 smaller ones with 2 or 3 songs in them (chosen at random of course). You may not vote in the sub prelim that you are entered in, but you can freely vote in the others - in this manner you never have a chance to vote for your own piece, but you have enough smaller competitions to accommodate the community size and thus have more decisive/conclusive outcomes of them.
The only problem I can see with this is people voting on the worse of the 2 or 3 to "strike out" people who'd be able to compete with their own piece, but it seems a bit fairer then having just 1 vote being the deciding factor.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Feb 9, 2011 19:43:53 GMT -5
This.
|
|
|
Post by WherewolfTherewolf on Feb 9, 2011 19:58:57 GMT -5
It doesn't seem exactly all that of a good thing imo to tell the voters who they should (or in this case shouldn't) vote for. The point of a poll is to find a general opinion on a subject, thus you want people to answer as non-biased as possible. Giving them limits beyond those already instilled by the limits of the selections is providing bias into the situation, thus ruining part of the poll's credibility. Now on the other side, limitless voting of those within the poll provides bias into the fact that they can now vote for themselves, and thus spur their own chances of winning - should we have a larger voter base this wouldn't be much of a problem, but of course atm it is since we only have around 11 people voting on these polls at once - so 1 vote like that will either either spread out the votes pointlessly or provide an unfair advantage that someone simply voted themselves into breaking a tie. But what if someone is going about their voting honestly, yet sees the opposition as inadequate? What if they truly see themselves as a choice as the best (beyond the standard self preference)? Then guiding their choice to another decision creates bias (as before stated).
The best idea imo is to do the voting in a manner that they are given the chance to vote, but never for their own pieces - this creates the minimum room for bias in the situation as their own piece is involved in a minimal sense in their voting choice.
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Feb 9, 2011 20:04:58 GMT -5
I agree. Lol wolf made the other option a lot more complicated. I'm for that. Competitors can't vote for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by WherewolfTherewolf on Feb 9, 2011 20:10:02 GMT -5
Well those options work fine I guess, but I was trying to look for a more efficient option as they both seem flawed imo
|
|
|
Post by TheGuitahHeroe on Feb 9, 2011 20:13:00 GMT -5
I agree with this, but then it seems to me as if people could easily get away with breaking the rule. Which is why I had defended the argument that people should tell who they voted for in a post on the thread. . . but THAT delves into voter confidentiality. XD
I think the best course of action to take would be to let everyone vote, including the contestants, but just not for themselves.
May further speculation arise and be proven (I'm confident this won't happen, lol), then ban that person from voting in future SotW competitions.
|
|
|
Post by Nova-Rocket Executive Ray on Feb 9, 2011 20:23:51 GMT -5
How about this:
If you enter in a competition, then entering yourself counts as your vote.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro Triplet (Larx) on Feb 9, 2011 20:29:19 GMT -5
How about this: If you enter in a competition, then entering yourself counts as your vote. logic plz
|
|
|
Post by TheGuitahHeroe on Feb 9, 2011 20:29:48 GMT -5
How about this: If you enter in a competition, then entering yourself counts as your vote. So you're basically saying you can't vote if you enter the contest. What would be the point of giving everybody one vote? It wouldn't change anything, except for the fact that the contestants are rendered unable to vote further, which we've established to be not the best idea.
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Feb 9, 2011 20:53:47 GMT -5
I think we should leave it at this: if you're competing, you can't vote for yourself. You can vote for others if you wish, but not for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by TheGuitahHeroe on Feb 9, 2011 21:07:49 GMT -5
I think we should leave it at this: if you're competing, you can't vote for yourself. You can vote for others if you wish, but not for yourself. YA MONEY
|
|
|
Post by pokemoneinstein on Feb 9, 2011 22:34:43 GMT -5
Eh.
I agree that it's unfair, but with anonymity, we can't really... Do anything. Besides, from an administration standpoint, there's no way to actually disable people from voting for themselves. Plus there's the issue that some people might lie about who they vote for, and it just gets to be more trouble than it's worth. Just telling people to use the honor system is the best we can do.
|
|
|
Post by almightyarceus on Feb 9, 2011 23:54:19 GMT -5
. Just telling people to use the honor system is the best we can do. That's the idea. Personally I don't view it as a huge deal. But I wanna stymie any conflict that would come of this.
|
|
|
Post by Dasgust on Feb 10, 2011 15:32:43 GMT -5
I agree with this.
|
|