Hmmm, so why bother with voting on the shortlist at all..... surely the item with the most nominations for a given category is the winner in that category?
Bike Forum
[closed]
2009 Singletrack Reader Awards - VOTE NOW!
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
why?
Eh cause I was just wondering, nothing sinister. Is that okay?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmmm, so why bother with voting on the shortlist at all..... surely the item with the most nominations for a given category is the winner in that category?
Yes your right and the whole process should be changed at once for all awards done this way.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmmm, so why bother with voting on the shortlist at all..... surely the item with the most nominations for a given category is the winner in that category?
You have to have a shortlist for the final round of voting, and to be impartial the shortlist has to be created by the voting public. If the result was entirely down to the nomination ballot where would the fun be?
I don’t know why I’m sticking up for them as I didn’t win and it still gnaws away at my innards despite what I said earlier. Clearly, as my Gran used to say, the whole thing is a giant bloody swizz.
Or maybe it is a bit of fun that is in danger of turning into a pain in the arse for them because of people arguing the toss.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drac - no need for sarcasm.
You have to have a shortlist for the final round of voting
That's what I wondered about. Why? What's the flaw with one user, one nomination per category, winner is the thing with the most nominations (ie. votes). What purpose does the final round of voting serve? genuinely curious.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's a bit of fun and it stimulates debate.
Also, I bet that more people vote in the final round than do at the nomination stage because it is easier.
Surely the most important thing is that it is STW's awards and they can do what they like as long as they are not bent, and by the way this is set up there is no reason to suspect that it is.
Do you e-mail the BBC at Sports Personality Of The Year time too and tell them they're not doing it right?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Do you e-mail the BBC at Sports Personallity Of The Year time too and tell them they're not doing it right?
Shhh! Apparently there's no need for sarcasm, unless it's now time I forgot my sarcasm watch today.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sorry. I'm off to fix my bike now... i'll try not to look at the empty space on the shelf in the shed that I cleared for the award. Bastids.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not sure where my award is or I'd show you a nice pic of it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Did they use to do a sarcasm award
Posted 2 years ago # -
You know how Political Parties (for example) elect a new leader by having a few rounds of voting, each time narrowing down the candidates and quite often it isn't the canididate who had the most most votes in the opening stages that goes on to win and the eventual winner is the candidate who gets the most votes overall..?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Did they use to do a sarcasm award
lol
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well that's me put firmly back in my place.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The difference between this and a party leadership thing, is that in the party, all the voters will know all the finalists.
Here, the voters know very little about them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Here, the voters know very little about them
so it's more like a general election than a party leadership one?Posted 2 years ago # -
The difference between this and a party leadership thing, is that in the party, all the voters will know all the finalists.
And the difference between STW awards and a party leadership is that no one really takes the STW serious enough to worry too much, well so I thought.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Perhaps we should have a system of proportional representation where there are multiple voting rounds and after each one the losing 'candidate' has their votes redistributed? So instead of tick boxes we have a system where you type a number from 1 to 3 next to each candidate.
Or we simply eliminate the loser after a predetermined period of time that has been agreed by a committee made of elected members of the forum in an annual ballot (that itself is run using a system of PR*) and then have a new round of voting but with the remaining candidates.
That would make everyone happy surely?
*Candidates for the committee will have go through a campaign and hustings period and comform to a set of criteria that will be drawn up by a selection committee* prior to the opening of the nominations phase.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mark - Administrator
Perhaps we should have a system of proportional representation where there are multiple voting rounds and after each one the losing 'candidate' has their votes redistributed? So instead of tick boxes we have a system where you type a number from 1 to 3 next to each candidate.Or we simply eliminate the loser after a predetermined period of time that has been agreed by a committee made of elected members of the forum in an annual ballot (that itself is run using a system of PR*) and then have a new round of voting but with the remaining candidates.
That would make everyone happy surely?
*Candidates for the committee will have go through a campaign and hustings period and comform to a set of criteria that will be drawn up by a selection committee* prior to the opening of the nominations phase.
Or just do your own thing and tell those that don't like it to eff off.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Or just do your own thing and tell those that don't like it to eff off.
I think he just did.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
