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: 1739260" data-attributes="member: 177">There are no hard and fast rules, for a simple reason - they would be impossible to enforce.  The idea is to pick a voting system that least needs rules while still allowing the flexibility we like.As for your Avalanche example - personally, I think one should vote for the individual product, not the company (unless you are voting on a "Best Company" category).  If a particular Avalanche product did not have the offensive cover, the covers of other products they put out should not influence your vote on it.That's why we're discussing it.  But it isn't quite that simple. The voting system currently in place has flaws.  But every system does.  We're just considering what other options are available, and what their flaws are.  No point in patching one hole to open another we like less.Plus, there are statiscial methods one can use to minimize the effects of political voting, which mitigate the problem in our current system somewhat.Well, as a practical matter, yes, because there is no method of enforcement.  But that's rather like saying that stealing a lollipop from a 4 year old is okay, because nobody will catch you.  <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's wrong with that?  Simple - market penetration is not directly correlated with product quality.  And we'd like the prize to be for quality.As an extreme example - WotC has the greatest market penetration of all RPG companies.  But much of that penetration is built upon the past financial success of the Pokemon CCG, which has little to do with the RPGs WotC produces.  A huge advantage due to unrelated business just isn't right for a "best of" award, IMHO.  So, we try for a voting system that mitigates such advantages.</blockquote>

Verification