Teflon Billy said:
Well, I could use your terminology and refer to it as "Wihholding priveleges", but I think--at least from a parenting background--that the therms could be used almost interchangable, and I don't reeally intend to argue semnatics.
Well, let's argue meaning then - is any real harm done to someone who has already served as a judge (perhaps already served multiple times) if you occasionally say "not this year"?
The reason I don't apply this same thought to the Judging Panel is that it is possible for the voting public to be acquainted with their candidates...if only from the nominations thread and general interaction, a level of familiarity that is much harder to accomplish with most every product released last year.
Right. As if there's enough information in the nominations thread to claim real familiarity? We could apply that to the products too: publishers wouldn't have to submit products - they could submit some advertising copy. Those products with larges name recognition and the best ad copy win!
Now I know you misunderstand me. I don't care one whit about the "needs" of the Panel other than that it be capable of doing its job.
That's cool. You've just defined what needs you feel need to be met. I simply think there's things to consider outside of that, too.
I think most anyone on the panel might be capable of it, but I know the incumbents are.
Well, we out here actually don't know that, because we don't see the detailed workings of the panel. All we see are end results, and lack of public complaint by other judges.
How many new faces have ever failed to meet the requirements?
Then why, if it's as easy as that, is there anyone but the Myself, CL, Crothian, Joe and Diaglo with any votes at all? I think you overstate the surety of it.
It is statistics, my man. Statistics. In even the most clear-cut race, there will be some outlying votes. But that doesn't imply that there was any reasonable chance those dark horses would win.
Why do you feel the winners are obvious? I voted early on and never would've expected Diaglo to have such a strong showing (no offense David).
Diaglo is one of the best-known folks on these boards. If Hong had run, he might beat Diaglo, but none of the rest of us really stand a chance. For JoeG - he won handily last year, though he had to recuse himself, there's no reason to think he'd preform less well than previously. The rest of you are both popular, and incumbent. The lack of contest was pretty obvious.
Unfortunately, it's the heart of my argument, so if you could spare more than a sentence dismissing it, I'd be really interested.
Maybe you can boil down somehting quick on why you think that "in the absence of misconduct or incompetence" incumbent candidates should be excluded.
I don't dismiss it. I simply think it'd take a really long time to cover properly, and these posts are long enough as it is. However, to address part of it - I don't think incumbents should be completely excluded. I think that some limit on the number of terms in a row that one could serve might be healthy for the awards.
Why? Well, drama does improve voter interest and turnout. There is no drama in this election, and I don't think there was much drama in the previous one, and not much, as I recall, the year before that, either. A turnover of judges would mean voters couldn't sit back and assume they'd get judges they like.
Of course, if you prefer, we can go the "All Star" route. Say that only the big guns are allowed to run. Us small fry don't stand much chance as it stands anyway, os it isn't like we are losing much. And competition among a group of ten folks who are popular and held the post before would certainly be dramatic. And you yourself have said that incumbants should be favored...
I'm not sure why, though. You suggest that they are more sure to get the job done right. But nobody has shown me an example of a new judge who has fallen down on the job and not done the work, and done it well. Until someone backs up the fear with a bit of evidence, I don't see why there should be any preference to incumbancy.
Can we agree that you were implying a "greater level of voter participation growth" than the steady growth we are currently seeing?
I've said multiple times - I think it might increase voter turnout. So far, it is still uncertain if we'll match last year's turnout, so I don't know if we have to quibble if I am looking for increased absolute numbers, or increased growth rate.
) that could open ten bogus hotmail accounts to sign up at Enworld in order to fix the vote.
