Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 2064011" data-attributes="member: 1">Not to quibble, but nobody has a right to vote in the ENnies.&nbsp; And any conditions imposed on their permission to vote are valid; for example, if there were some possible way we could eliminate certain voting habits, we would.&nbsp; I don't like strategic voting, and I really disagree with undervaluing a product below its worth deliberately just so your favourite will win.&nbsp; If you consider a product average, you should give it an average score, not a &quot;1&quot; so as to ruin its chances of winning.Of course, no voting method will prevent this entirely.&nbsp; But last year, we did discard all &quot;10/1/1/1/1&quot; ballots.&nbsp; I refused to believe that anybody honestly considered 4 out of 5 nominated products, which had been selected for their quality by five judges, to all be worth only a 1, and the other - coincidentally - to be worth a 10.&nbsp; The odds on that being an honest vote are so remote that it's not even worth the effort of debating whether it might be.&nbsp; So, ironically, those people who voted in that method actually deprived their fave products of a 10 vote.&nbsp; If they'd been honest and selected &quot;I'm not familiar with this product&quot; or given a range of scores which weren't all 1s then their chosen fave would have done better.But still, that's not ideal either.&nbsp; There's no ideal, but I'd strive for enforcement of honest voting even if it's a goal that can't be reached.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 2064011, member: 1"] Not to quibble, but nobody has a [i]right[/i] to vote in the ENnies. And any conditions imposed on their permission to vote are valid; for example, if there were some possible way we could eliminate certain voting habits, we would. I don't like strategic voting, and I really disagree with undervaluing a product below its worth deliberately just so your favourite will win. If you consider a product average, you should give it an average score, not a "1" so as to ruin its chances of winning. Of course, no voting method will prevent this entirely. But last year, we did discard all "10/1/1/1/1" ballots. I refused to believe that anybody honestly considered 4 out of 5 nominated products, which had been selected for their quality by five judges, to all be worth only a 1, and the other - coincidentally - to be worth a 10. The odds on that being an honest vote are so remote that it's not even worth the effort of debating whether it might be. So, ironically, those people who voted in that method actually deprived their fave products of a 10 vote. If they'd been honest and selected "I'm not familiar with this product" or given a range of scores which weren't all 1s then their chosen fave would have done better. But still, that's not ideal either. There's no ideal, but I'd strive for enforcement of honest voting even if it's a goal that can't be reached. [/QUOTE]

Verification