Happy New Year <Annie>- and good job on getting the nominees sorted on the <MannBee> page.

I was pleased to hear you call yourself "lazy" over there, and I was about to write a long argument about how I was lazier than you...

Outstanding! Nothing sweeter than a chess victory, I should think.

I have to say I'm exceedingly curious to hear your upcoming analysis of the current "issue of the week" at CG.com.

Very good analysis- I can't find fault with a word of it, including your critique of my boosterism.

I think that's right, though it never occurred to me last year when I was doing that.

An "in joke" isn't funny to others, and can denigrate the dignity of something, such as the Caissars.

A lack of humility and a lack of awareness of other people's feelings on my part- I'm smarting a bit because the extreme example of the kind of thoughtless behavior you describe is, arguably, every post by <Chris Owen>.

I believe, based on your observation, that I've overstepped that crucial "private-public" line of appropriateness with regard to my actions in the last three Caissar Awards.

I love teasing <TD>, but it would be very easy to keep my joking with him off of the Caissar page.

In addition, <wannabe> does this as a public service and the last three years he has been given way too much grief than he, or anyone deserves. In short, he's been taken for granted, and I'm one of the perpetrators of that.

Also, following another of your points, it's more than a little ironic that the members who have been dedicated to service at CG.com for a decade- those best suited to judge accurately such awards, and perhaps best suited to win them as well- don't seem very interested in them in the first place.

So it doesn't look as if the Caissars will ever be accurate and dignified- which is a shame, because it's a good idea.

Luckily I'm not dead yet, so there's room for improvement, though that's generally easier said than done.

It's foolish not to listen to your friends, particularly if they have a critique to offer- since friends shy from offering such critiques precisely because they are friends, then we should pay especially close attention to them when they *are* offered.

As my psychiatrist used to tell me-

I doubt they will do it though.

You know that on <youtube>, where there's money at stake, the administrators work almost around the clock writing "anti ballot stuffing" code to prevent "false view counts."

There's two financial incentives there- first, advertisers don't want to pay for space on a channel with 20,000,000 views if all of them are fake.

Second, youtube doesn't want to share revenue with members who become "Partners" if the view counts on those channels are fake.

CG.com has no financial incentive to take over the Caissars.

I believe they are really underfunded and overworked.

For this reason, to change topic a bit, I think they should extend member control over various activities- such as they already do with the Player Biographies for example.

Why not arrange an official CG.com page and allow a member- an unpaid member with the heart to do it, such as <wannabe>- to have direct control over the page?

They'd have to trust someone, but I don't think it's that hard for them to figure out who is worthy of getting administrative powers.

You'd always get a serious ear from him, and I'm sure he'd consider the idea if you broached it to him directly.

I think you'd carry some "weight" if you wrote such an email, given your knowledge of the history of the site- and given the current state of affairs at the Caissars.

Remember the administrators did eventually take some strong action during the great "BW War", and they were- with good reason- horrified by the whole affair.

I think you should let them know. Why not? It's a really good idea, and for all my shenanigans, I love the Caissar awards.

2. The 'ballot stuffing' will not end, nor can it be controlled if CG.com admin takes over. Unless you can prove all the votes for Best Analyst/Analysis comes from a single IP address. If the top domain address comes from Phillipines, what does that prove? Or the ISP's name is located in Phillipines, what does THAT prove?

3. Yes, that is why 2 years ago I blew my top in the Funniest Kibitz'n category, believe it or not, I take this somewhat seriously, possibly more seriously than I need to, but then again, my mentra is, "If you want to do something, do it the best you can, whether it is the best, let the public be the judge."

When <Nicholaas> started this, I loved the idea, and the process, it is where we, the members critique/nominate/vote for our peers, it is 'really' no different than an election, we nominate, (but no primaries) and we vote, if it is a popularity contest, or have become a popularity contest, so be it.

If various nominees wish to 'lobby' for votes, so be it, they are in the minority, far more nominees just remain silent, very silent. Because, I think, they know, that action speaks louder than words...

Before we even try to find a solution, we must figure out what exactly the problem is, or indeed whether there is any.

The problem isn't that a lot of people from the Philippines are voting. On the contrary, they (like anyone else) should be encouraged to vote. Anyway, traditionally and even today, quite many of the voters have come from the US. If we've never seen a problem with that, why should this be a problem?

The problem isn't that they're voting for other Filipinos only. One, they're allowed to do that. We can't start telling people who to vote for, other than not to vote people who weren't even nominated. Two, it's too early to claim they'll vote for other Filipinos only; in fact, quite probably they won't.

The problem isn't that their mass votes are causing unworthy candidates to win. Their candidates are almost certainly worthy; I know <Iskubadayb> for example has a high and probably deserved reputation as an analyst.

If the problem is that their mass votes risk causing worthy candidates <not> winning (some of the more sour-grapes-type posts have indicated that this is the problem), well, that's not a <new> problem. There have always been worthy candidates who have failed to win, and always will be, simply because there's more than one worthy candidate in every category every year. (OK, define "worthy". There's exactly one candidate worthy of a Caissar every year, that being the one who gets the most support. But there are many <highly qualified> candidates.)