This is essentially what <kutztown46>, <WinKing> and I do for the <Rinus> Awards. For those, though, we use a nomination process, but there is no vote counting.

The Cttee reads posts and discusses the nominees behind closed doors (email) and then announces the winner(s). This has been well-accepted by the World Team and eliminates the bloc voting.

We do pay attention to the number of nominations, but we pay attention to other factors as well. As an example, <zanshin> got some votes for one of the Caissar categories, but he has left the site (his last post was Aug. 6, 2010).

I am still in touch with him by email, and I consider him to be a good friend. Nonetheless, I would not have made an award to him this year even if he had gotten the most votes from the BW.

In contrast, we know that <mal> struggles at times and we worry if we don't hear from him for a while. I wouldn't hesitate to make a Caissar award to him under similar circumstances.

But there's a huge difference= a cash award of a Preemy. If the Caissars were run exactly as the Rinuses, I doubt they would last long.

Caissar winners invariably already have Premmies, and I doubt there'd be much interest or notice of "awards" if folk didn't have the fun of nominating and voting- viz, participating in an enjoyable social activity.

The Caissar is not actually "an award"- there is no award.

It's more of a "Reality TV Awards Show" where we all get to participate on screen.

It's kind of an elusive animal- they really "don't matter" as <Ohio> points out, but we still like to win them or see our selection win.

Because we get recognition from peers- we can see who voted for us, and what they might say about us.

In a full on Rinus-style committee setting there'd be little or none of that.

I understand you're suggesting a kind of "hybrid" with voting, and a small committee to "oversee"?

I don't see that as compatible. If the folks can't cast binding votes in public, they might not want to vote. If the committee has final say on who gets the award- coercive authority- people might get choked by the final decision.

If the committee has no such authority, then it can serve no actual purpose- it can just be ignored.

To speak directly at what's really most at issue here, and the reason this discussion is even happening:

If a "Committee" couldn't overturn a bloc vote result from the Barangay, it would do nothing to solve the problem.

If the "Committee" could overturn such a result, that would create a new problem- a furious Barangay feeling they've been cheated.

That's a no-win situation IMO.

The only serious problem with this year's show, to my mind, was beyond <MannBee's> control- and all of our control.

The <best analyst> award was won by a non-English poster who only posts on Pilipino players because it was pushed through by force majeur.

But only that one award.

If the Barangay continues to show at least that much restraint- hopefully more next year- then I don't see any serious problem in future.

If the Barangay escalates such behavior, the show will eventually peter out. If a quarter, or a third, or half, or all, of next year's awards are won by non-English speaking members who don't do any work except on Pilipino players, then the show is dead- It would then be <The Barangay Awards>.

There is no way to stop such action externally, apart from appealing to the Barangay.

You can't rig the rules of the current format against them- and you know I don't think the administrators want to be involved in any of this.

I suspect they feel overwhelmed with other work at the best of times.

Maybe it will all work out without anything being done about the existing state of affairs.

The Barangay isn't unreasonable, and they've had a chance now to see the negative reaction to this year's <best analyst> winner.

Thanks <hms123>.

a 3-man or i prefer a 5-man committee is mandatory, who will volunteer?

<You should too.>

thanks <hms>, but i tend to be bias on BW and so i give the chance and respect to other Caissar pioneers. I nominate <jessica>..

Committee Composition Update:

OK, a lot to catch up with, here, so I'll do that in parts. But I see some very concerning developments, and will start there before they escalate further - first things first.

<wordfunph> A committee may or may not be a good idea, I appreciate WannaBe's work and goodwill enough to trust him with that decision - but it certainly is NOT "mandatory". And starting a running count for committee nominations before he's even had a chance to get a word in edgewise, is not helpful, it's pushy. Tone down with the aggressiveness, please.

<hms> - I'm afraid that, even if WannaBe should actually want a committee appointed, it would not be a good idea for you to be on it. You already have a part in the Rinus Awards, and as an experienced moderator (aka admin) myself, when a person starts to try to put on more and more hats, I see that as a humongous red flag - the "status greed" bug may have bitten. I'm not accusing you of anything, to be sure, I've seen such scenarios time and again, and I know that they usually start with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, they tend to play out very, very, badly - almost invariably. Just not a good idea to go there.

Let me assure you that at my stage of career and life, I have had all the status I need. I don't need any more nor do I want any more. I try to work behind the scenes--and I turn down titles all the time. I tell people I will do the work, but no titles.

<Switch: <Worse, it's totally against the ideals to be promoted by the Procrastinators' Club.>>

Well yes, that too, but to paraphrase another member, "but as that is purely a question of personal taste, I have chosen to leave it alone." ;)

<To speak directly at what's really most at issue here, and the reason this discussion is even happening:

If a "Committee" couldn't overturn a bloc vote result from the Barangay, it would do nothing to solve the problem.

If the "Committee" could overturn such a result, that would create a new problem- a furious Barangay feeling they've been cheated.

That's a no-win situation IMO.>

However, if we can clearly define what the 'committee' number, and its purposes/powers are, and members of CG agree to it (Another vote? We vote to/so we can have another vote? Aaaaaaargh!! =)

This does not mean, if it is determined, that the 'best' solution, is to have a 'committee', I will be more than honoured, and pleased to serve as one of its member; I follow the will of the people, and to serve the masses...

Personally, I think you can be trusted to consult people <you> trust, in turn, whenever you feel the need to do so, and there's no need to formally appoint some "committee". In fact, I'd say that a large part of your troubles stem from accepting the idea that the Caissars should be run on the basis of the political model, which just ain't necessarily so.

Another (or maybe the same) problem is IMO - as completely opposed to <Switch>'s suggestion (and how's that for efficiency of committees? ;p ) - that you're not running the show authoritatively <enough>. :) Things get out of hand because you need to be able to be the "bad guy" as, if, and when necessary, or your niceness will be taken advantage of.

Case in point: IMO you never should have agreed to the practice of self-nomination and self-voting. First somebody did it, and then you just accepted it, with harmful results.

That's one place to start setting the mess straight - such things, and lobbying, should not be condoned, nor allowed. And you <do> have the authority to make it so!

But if you want that point addressed - I think <Jess> did a superb job appealing to the BW's better nature, of which hopefully they have one. ;p

<WannaBe: <[...] is it a 'bad' timing to hold the Caissar Award at the turn of the year? When people are still not back in school/work? Don't people have internet connections in their homes and on their phones anymore?

I moved it back a few weeks, because the usual announcement (in the Cafe) was being drown out by the Holiday Hunt. [...]>>

Hmm. As I recall, last year(?), the Caissars were mentioned in ceegee's winter newsletter, being announced just then. That can be very beneficial advertising, so it may be worth timing it for that period just for that reason.

If you think the winter season is too crowded action-wise at ceegee as is - and you may have a point there - how about timing it to correspond with ceegee's spring newsletter?

<<OCF> recommended that beside posting the announcement in the Cafe, also do it on the World Game Page, which I did once, but I am not sure if that does any good, since analysis and vote lobbying also make my posting scroll off the 25 posts per page.

He mentioned also posting on POTD page, but I wasn't too sure if he meant Player of the Day, or Pun of the Day, maybe I should have asked him for clarification.>

This year, with the newsletter coming out early, and Caissar being held at the start of the year, Daniel and I did communicate again, but we did not bring up the issue of Caissar.

Perhaps next year, I can request CG to send out a special newsletter just for it?! And also make daily spam posts in the Cafe, World Game (if there is one), and also Puzzle page.

Nikolaas never laid down any 'hard' voting procedures, I was merely following what he did/started, carried on the tradition of nomination and voting, if people feel nomination is not necessary, we can try it without.

Heh - thanks for that smile. :) The Latin purists sometimes refer to the plural form of forum (say that 5 times fast) as "fora". Personally, "forums" are good enough for me. :p

I also refer to the plural of the biological mouse as mice, but to the plural of the computer accessory mouse as "mouses".

My cats haven't objected, so that's ok.

Also think everything else in your last post (cross-posted there) is a good idea. :)

Well, as <Eyal> suggested, this may have been a <reaction> to the bloc voting vandalism - a theory I find very plausible.