Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 2628318" data-attributes="member: 177">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"?   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!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  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.  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?  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.  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. 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.   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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification