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: 2630647" data-attributes="member: 177">I have not stated that the current turnover rate is a problem, in and of itself.  I have speculated that increasing it might have beneficial results for the overall health of the Ennies.  The same ends might be reached by other means.  This is merely the particular means being discussed at the moment.If we decide that a great many things could be improved if the turnover rate increased, then the rate could be called the root problem, I suppose.  But I'm not looking at it that way right now.As noted before - it is my understanding that active campaigning is not allowed on the site.  We can make ourselves visible, but we aren't supposed to say, "Please go vote for me!" on the boards.  This sort of "passive/unintentional campaigning" is, of course, the source of the dependance upon postcount.  It is an unfortunate linkage, I think - there may be candidates who would be fine judges who are excluded because they don't think a year in advence that they have to post incessantly to get noticed enough to win an election.I was, separately, intending to suggest a sort of contest for judges in the future - folks nominate themselves, the BoD finds a small product none of them have reviewed (I expect there's any number of small presses who'd volunteer a pdf for the purpose), and each nominee writes a review.  The reviews are collected, and all posted at the same time for public review before voting.  This would unfortunately greatly expand the time required between nomination and voting, but it would give voters comparable perspectives on the nominees.To keep the time down, this could be entirely vountary - judges have three days from nominations to get it done...The right to vote implies a certain duty on the part of the voter to educate themselves, and the system we have implicitly assumes the acceptance of a certain level of risk.  If we are really interested in a system that maximizes ease for the voter, and tries to assure a certain level of performance, we should only elect new faces to replace old ones that no longer wish to serve.  That way, some years, no vote would be required at all, since all judges were previously proven to be acceptable.  And again - you guys keep harping on the greater assurance of election of competent judges.  But you've not yet shown a single case where a new judge has been shown to be incompetent!  You keep saying we need insurance, but you've not shown there's a high enough level of risk to require it.I always nominate myself, quite aware of the same thing <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=":)" />  I fully trust the voters to elect a panel of competent judges.  They have never failed to do so.  If anything, I'm trusting them more than you and TB - I trust them to find good judges with fewer incumbents as a crutch <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=":)" />What I have said, and what keeps getting ignored, is that we might consider that there's more invovled than getting five people who can judge products for this year.  If the trend MW shows continues, we have a health problem that ought to be addressed.  I'm apparently not making myself clear - this isn't about who does the better job of judging.  I agree that the incumbent judges do a good job.  I am also of the (apparently unpopular) opinion that there's a mess of people who vounteer every year who could do the job as well as the incumbents.  No offense, guys, but if we thought you were indespensible, we'd not have elections at all.  <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=":)" />  I am instead trying to get people to consider that we might get better results in other areas, with little loss, if we made more full use of the resources at hand.  This is not something that an uncoordinated voter base could be expected to handle on their own, especially when their non-presence is perhaps the most troubling issue.</blockquote>

Verification