fusangite said:
But these situations are not, in any case, analogous. You are proposing to micro-manage voter choice to a much greater extent by instituting such things as term limits.
Actually, term limits are the sole new feature I am proposing, so I don't see how it's Awful Micromanaging.
Oh, and how are they not analogous, aside from you saying so? It is generally customary to provide supporting arguments for your position, instead of making your position, your argument.
Your question, above, is analogous to asking, "Should people who don't play RPGs be allowed to run?" And my position is, "Of course; we can trust the voters not to choose them."No. I support rules that disqualify people due to conflict of interest. And the ENnies already have such a rule -- one of the few restrictions on candidacy that I support.
Well, no, it's not analogous to this. It's a a response to an obvious trend in the awards that by its very nature cannot represent a wide variety of gamers. What you are essentially proposing is that a vague sentiment about democracy -- which the awards don't follow, anyway -- take precedence over actually examining them. The unfortunate thing about sentimental propositions is that they are by their nature extreme. If you have led the discussion to this position don't be surprised when there's revelant fallout.
But, again, this is not relevant. You are proposing to increase the current level of restriction of voter choice. The fact that I support the current level of restriction cannot be taken as a point in favour of your position.I think that financial conflicts of interest are a special case and a form of candidacy restriction I favour.
Actually, by your sentimental democratic argument, they aren't special at all. After all, we should trust voters not to vote for these people, shouldn't we? From this position, where democracy is an end in of itself, there is not one whit of difference. It really is an all or nothing position.
Of course, if you have a utilitarian argument, then democracy is *not* an end, and it's okay to fool with it for the sake of improving the process. That's means you can restrict conflicts of interest, but guess what? The utilitarian argument doesn't filter out the idea that having an award where up to a third of the judges *aren't* repeats every year is probably not a bad idea.
If we did not restrict candidacy on this basis, we would end up with a lot of negative campaigning as candidates who were not in conflict would have to point out which of their competitors were. With even one or two entries into the race by people in conflict, the whole tone of the race would change from a positive one to a negative one and the resulting depression in voter turnout would offset any benefits that would result from widening those eligible for candidacy.
So what? And how would this depress voter turnout? That's an entire speculative statement and, I submit, probably incorrect speculation.
Hell, the awards probably have more diversity in large part *because of* this thread.
Similarly, unlike term limits, conflict of interest restrictions on candidacy and voting or candidacy are universal in mature democratic systems whereas term limits tend to be rare and more common in emerging democracies.
You realize that an award is not much like a democratic government? And that many, many small scale democratic organizations, such as student unions and nonprofits, to limit incumbency?
This is a tired kind of argument eyebeams; I expected a little better from you. These kinds of all-or-nothing propositions just don't fly.
This is your extreme position, not mine. You're all about democracy as an end. This *is* an extreme position. I have provided not one, but two workable systems, one of which would remove judges and be far more democratic than anything you seem prepared to consider. If your position is out of utility, then changing one rule and adding another are trivial.
The feeling I get from you -- and from *many* of the rest of you -- is that you're most interested in supporting some abstract concept of the awards and it's "good name," as if I'm staging some unruly assault on either.
You are also not allowed to run your pet for the ENnies but that is neither here nor there.
Strawman *and* reductio ad absurdum.
What we are debating is whether democracy is served by further restricting people's choices. And you have offered no positive argument for why it is; all you have done is harangued me for being some kind of hypocrite by constructing a series of all-or-nothing propositions.
You've merely refused to identify such. I've made it clear that I believe the awards are best served by having fresh candidates with absolutely no paid industry ties for a significant period (instead of the unworkable year), and you've made it clear that proposing such really hurts your feelings. I am only responsible for *one* of these things.
The funny thing about appeals to democracy is that they are *meaningless* without talking about the good it does. And once you admit utility is a factor you must consider all things that might improve utility. You either took this extreme position yourself or took a utilitarian position, didn;t explain it, and wouldn't engage other utilitarian arguments. If you wanted to stall and damage meaningful discussion, that's a great way to go about it, but maybe you're just making a mistake. I really don't know.
I think the elections should be as free as is practical. And they are.
Do you actually think you have formulated the perfect form of the awards? Perfect? Really? Because that's what it sounds like.
)
