<Dom: <If two people tell you you're drunk, count them again.>>

But then there would be <four>? :s

<WannaBe> as the host of the Caissars, you probably (and rightly) consider it your duty to be polite to all in your forum for the duration. You are welcome to bring any opinions, frustrations, complaints, etc., here meanwhile, if you wish. ;)

I'd also propose a think tank to try to figure out what could be improved and how. :)

<1. I already have a page that I control, I can close the page, delete posts, etc... It is called my forum.>

Well, theoretically you could, but in practice you won't, because you probably feel that you are hosting something "larger than you".

<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?>

I know that the ISP's location proves nothing. I also know quite a bit about what can, and can't, be done with, or learned from, IPs. And, um, the less said about that, the better. ;)

Actually, I don't even think we are seeing ballot stuffing in this particular case, because it simply isn't needed.

However, in theory, it can become an issue - and whoever is running this event ought to have access to the IP records.

I think the 'issue' is that a lot of the voters, who voted in the best analysis/analyst category, did not or will not vote in any other cagetories.

A ramdom sampling of these voters showed they are legitimate members of CG.com, the accounts are not created within the last few weeks, their kibitz'n count are considerable. (Of course, they are no where near the 'Big 3'...)

Now, why did they not nominate/vote in last year's Caissar? What about the year before? Or before? (Maybe it is because <Iskubadayb> have only been a member since Sept. 29, 2009?)

Anyway, my prediction is, this will happen again next year, in the same category, but I don't have a real problem with it. I came up with some ideas, but rejected them out-right...

An example, only members who have been here longer than (X) years can vote? No, I rejected that, only prem. members can vote? No, I rejected that too.

Again, if an exploratory committee is to be formed after the votings are over, I have no objections what so ever. But I think we need address what was brought up before, (can't think who did, and am too lazy to go back and look for it.)

And that is : What is the 'problem' or what is bugging us about this, and is it a 'real' problem.

<It seems to me that most categories should reflect something about the accessibility of the winner's posts to the wider community. If <Iskubadayb> is one of the top analysts at the website (and I assume he is), then I want to know that so that I can benefit from his analysis. It also means that when I go to a game page and am looking for good information, then I want to know where to start.

Is there a line? What if the best written post is in Norwegian, or Spanish, or....? Is that ok? What if the funniest kibitzer isn't <TD> after all, but some one who only posts in German?

I would like to pay more attention to such posters, but clearly won't be able to do so without a lot of study of languages on my part.

In sum, I don't mind the bloc voting (for all the reasons that others have mentioned), but I do think that accessibility remains an issue.>

<On the one hand, theoretically it's clearly "off" to name somebody as a main contributor to this site, when this person chooses to contribute, not to the site overall, but only a sharply defined subset thereof - which subset then appears to aggressively promote their favorite, regardless of the clear inappropriateness of awarding such an <exclusive> contributor a "title" that is meant to be a recognition to <site-wide> valuable members.>

Well, yeah. In the way a *drunk tank* is, mebbe. And fulla frogs. A Burgundian drunk tank.

<This "Domdaniel chessforum" sounds like the place to be.>

Tell me about it. I'm there alla time! ;)

<crawf> I knew a chap who got unfrocked, but best not go there.

Debagging is probably safer, and common in airports.

Ok I'm a "I can has"-speak fan as you know so no secret there.

But I found it intriguing that the people who wrote the puns are not identified?

Shouldn't they be identified? Or maybe if they aren't it makes the voting more accurate.

Seems to me that there's a subset of people with premium memberships who show up on the "chessforums" link, over and over the same 30-40 people- and they are also the most active voters in the awards?

Reminds me that there are thousands of folk, premium and non-premium who use and benefit from the site on a regular basis, and who surely appreciate the contributions they make use of.

If an actual "census" form asking for the "best of" categories were emailed to every registered member, I bet a large number of them would fill it out and send it in.

A much larger number than the number of current voters.

Shirley this would be a more accurate reflection of "who is most appreciated" for each category?

One more thing, about your point about general help/interest vs. personal help/interest.

Certainly the former category should be more prized for a website awards event.

But within that category, there's a strong "personal" element that fractures the cohort- those who only go the POTD will be expert on who makes the most valuable posts of general interest on that page in particular, and so on.

For example, if I hadn't been researching chess history at this site for a year, I would have had no idea of the truly staggering work of <Karpova>, who stands out as the best of a very fine group of other folk who have been recording and posting chess history here since 2002.

It's one thing to have a large chess history book collection and the brains to make sense of it, and quite another to post an enormous amount of this information on relevant pages, and and then cite it accurately.

Quite literally- I couldn't have made most of my videos without <Karpova's> posts.

And yet to know about him and his work, you'd have to be reading a very large number of "old player" pages for a long time.

<Jess: <Shouldn't they be identified? Or maybe if they aren't it makes the voting more accurate.>>

It probably would make the voting more accurate, although that gets messy too - the authorship of some puns is known, others not... plus some puns are extra popular, not due to authorship, but due to referring to players who are site members. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, though, just that this is one of the most complicated-to-judge categories.

<You submitted and got accepted lots of puns no? Was more than one in that list at <MannBee's> forum?>

There were two - both of my puns that were chosen for GOTDs this year: <Enders' Game> and <All Your Baze Are Belong To Us>. Thanks for voting for that, btw. ;)

At the moment, given that most of the "misbehavior" issues have stopped - and I suppose we will only find out next year whether they will resume and/or amplify (as Ohio suggested), or not (and it's possible that the very existence of the discussion here and at <Dom>'s, has had / will have, an influence on that) - I think we are left with just two main issues, the first and foremost one being the far too small voter pool - there is an undeniable need for substantial improvement here. Suggestions are needed.

<Ohio> suggested to promote the elections at the Challenge page and the daily site features (GOTD, POTD), not just the Cafe - I think those are very good suggestions. Lots of people (me included, incidentally) find the Cafe far too fast-paced to even *try* to keep up with.

<Jess> suggested having cg.com email the poll - this, IMO, would be by far the most massively efficient measure, however it would effectively mean that cg.com takes over the Caissars, which does not seem to be WannaBe's favored option. Although perhaps some sort of compromise... for example, if cg.com could be asked to attach a poll sheet to their winter newsletter, or a separate mass mail, and then hand over the results to <WannaBe>, to add to the votes collected on-site (including voter identities, to avoid double voting).

My own additional suggestion would be to dispense with the division of the process into two stages - nomination and voting separately - because IMO this slows down and confuses everything considerably, and I don't really see any point in it.

The second "problem" being the point raised most clearly by <Dom> and <Once>, and also mentioned by <Switch>: that the separate interest areas of the site feature different regulars, both readers and contributors. Is the best analyst the poster who regularly shows up to contribute valuable insights during the live games? Or one who simply goes over hundreds of games in the database every year and posts valuable analysis to game pages? Both are site-wide contributors. And so forth.

And should the more exclusive kibitzers - fans of particular players for example, who only write about their favorite - be really "doomed" to be considered unworthy candidates - but even if not, maybe the "sub-communities" should see to holding their own internal elections.

More later, probably, I think I haven't covered everything... meanwhile a couple of minor comments:

<WannaBe: <Now, why did they not nominate/vote in last year's Caissar? What about the year before? Or before? (Maybe it is because <Iskubadayb> have only been a member since Sept. 29, 2009?)>>

Well, no, I'd say this had more to do with it: wordfunph chessforum

<Switch: <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.>>

Not exactly right, <Switch>. :) By that reasoning, the analyst Caissar should go to Susan Polgar or Nigel Short - they are surely the best analysts present at the site. But Short will only contribute analysis when paid to do so, and Polgar has TMK never analyzed a game - not at <cg.com>, anyway. Somehow, I don't think the idea is to be awarding titles for <potential> contribution to the site.

I agree that the more "general" contribution should be prized above the more "narrow"-

You mentioned the possibility of "sub-categories."

Totally inappropriate for them to shove their man down our throats, by force majeur, at a site-wide award event, despite them not actually breaking any rules.

I'm hoping- and guessing- that they will show some restraint next year, as they did this year apart from the one category.

The "integration" of the BW with the rest of the site, with a few (very) notable exceptions, is already as tenuous as it could be.