<is this statement redundant?>

That was two awards shows ago, but prior to the last awards show, <Annie> gave me a good dressing down and explained why my electioneering was bad for the Caissars.

I took her advice instantly, and you'll note I didn't spam any election notices for last year's awards, nor shall I do so again. I did pledge a vote to a friend recently, which I shouldn't have done probably, although it's been a running joke between us for three years. So that'll be the last time for that as well.

I didn't get where I am today- living primarily on a chess website instead of in my actual apartment- by not paying attention to suggestions by <Annie K>.

The issue was purely how were non tagalog speakers to know whether it was high quality analysis or not?

I never doubted it was high quality.

<Switch: <If that wasn't a voting bloc, neither was BW>>

Similar, yes, but not completely identical. I've already gone over the difference between voting for friends and nationalistic voting last year (Domdaniel chessforum), so here's a copy paste:

<... it's a matter of causality.

Yup, most people do honestly believe that their friends are the best (at whatever); however, the fine distinction lies in the manner in which these friends were <selected> in the first place.

In the tribal model, "friends" are selected by geographical/ethnic criteria alone first, and the bias in favor of them follows. In this model, clearly the contention that someone is favored "just because he's a friend" stings because it is quite likely entirely correct.

Whereas we tend to choose our friends from amongst those individuals that we most like, appreciate, and respect - for their personalities - to start with. So of course we <continue> to think they are fine people, after they become our friends too!>

Hope that helps. ;)

<Switch: <It's also possible to underestimate the natural competitiveness of chess players... especially for you, since you're less competitive than most. :o)>>

Ya think? :p

Of course, the reason I only ever post games I've won in my forum is simply because I believe that my friends would prefer to see me win; it's my hypothetical enemies who would enjoy seeing my losses - and I don't see why I should be trying to please the second, rather than the first, set. ;)

Also, all of their family members, friends, lobbied for them. (with possible financial rewards for their work)

What happened two years ago didn't really raise a 'stink' per se, the issue two years ago was more or less the introduction of Holiday Hunt and the timing it had with Caissar.

(Vote for Mr. Wabbit for funniest, not that baby face.)

Now, if we pass a no lobbying clause, we, are not going to go through every post/kibitz to seek out 'subtle' lobbying example that I just did.

That is where the 'search' function fails. Unless we ask fellow members to 'blow the whistle' on lobbying, I think it's too much work.

I know I have not posted a whole lot on this topic since I called for the ad hoc committee, but everything posted, I have read. (<Annie K.> caught my profile update. =)

It is not, I am slacking off, and just sitting back for the issues to resolve themselves, if nothing else, we've gone back to the same issues again.

(Kinda like the ever ending debate on Fischer, Goldsby, Rogoff, W. So pages).

Hard rules, and clauses, or sub-clauses, I think, in theory, they sound good, but who would want to read through 10 paragraphs on 'rules' just to vote for the 'Best Profile'?

(Oh, sorry, <OhioChessFan> your vote is disqualified, because you violated our Caissar Voting Rule number 2, clause b. That, would turn off more voters than I can imagine.)

This Award, started by <Nikolaas>, and I was 'dumb' enough to volunteer to continue it, have, in a way, become almost 'unmanageable'.

If one would to 'Search Kibitz'n' back when it first started, it was all done in the Cafe, we nominated, we voted, we were honest, we 'behaved' and we moved on.

We know the person worthy of the award have/has won, and we offered hearty congrats.

I currently have tried to gather up the main points of the posts made by everyone, and tried to outline them in my profile.

The details, will, hopefully be discussed/resolved, starting Nov. 10th. (<Annie K.> I am not picking on you or your points. Goodness knows, we go 'way' back in this place, and all the trouble I've had trying to post a link to your forum. And trying to resolve that issue. =)

The bottom line, I think, in a way, boils down to this (And here, I agree with <OhioChessFan>):

1. Seriousness of Caissar. By eliminating 'frivilous' (sp??) categories, will it help?? (May not, in the case of Best Analysis)

2. Nomination/Voting procedure, combine them into 1, and save 2 weeks of processing time? Or continue it as it is?

3. Nominating/Lobbying/Voting for oneself. Go ahead, if I remember correctly, 90% of the 'violators' are not premium members, just stragglers wanting their 5 seconds of fame.

3a. If we continue with the Nomin/Voting process, everyone nominated will be on the ballot.

I don't care if you are the Libertarian Party, or the Librarian Party, or the Literary Party, or the Laggart Party, or the Loggerhead Party. If someone nominated you (even yourself) you are on the ballot.

I also do not with to limit the process to just prem. members, I think, <Jim Bartle> is a very valued member on this site (JB, you are now officially screwed...) but he is not a prem. member.

Also, for a while, <NakoSonorense> was not a prem. member.

Yes, prem. members tends to know more about the site, the contributions put in by other members (hence, the Life Time Achievement Award.) but I do not think we should limit the voting process to just the politburo or the 'elite'.

(But, it would take care of, in a way, the Filipino voting bloc...)

Great, now I am anti-Filipino, when I run for President, this post is gonna come back and bring me down/haunt me.

But I'd still post it, for the good of CG. (Albeit, an indirect 'hint' on who to vote for in the funniest category.)

I think, the bottom line is, as long as the members 'behave' themselves, and treat this with a semi-seriousness, we should be OK. It's just a small web-award, given out by <Nikolaas> and now by a long-eared-bunny-looking person in California.

In a way, the popularity/success of CG.com have attracted more people, which is an absolutely <GREAT>, GREAT thing for chess, and for the community. But with success and expansion, other issues also occurs, e.g. W. So page.

(Why do I keep going back to the W. So page? I'm never gonna be voted President of the Philipines... Imelda Marcos have a better chance than I do.)

And it was a farce.

And it was the only real problem with last year's Caissars.

It pissed off every person who cares about the Caissars.

It can't be allowed to happen again.

None of the other problems listed in this thread are actually serious.

I would be happy to run the Caissars for you and take the load off- no problem.

If I did do so, I wouldn't change anything about the way you've been running it.

Except for this one point: I would disallow any nomination for a member who did not make his/her contribution(s) available in English.

They could make their posts in their native language + English. There's no problem there.

But again in your summing up you didn't even mention the only serious problem last year, and, arguably, in any previous year.

A member won an award posting *solely* in a language that 99% of the other members can't understand.

That was flatly ludicrous.

It made a farce of the spirit of the awards.

That's true. And I sometimes think that whoever gets the most votes wins, and all of these suggested rules should be scrapped.

<1. Seriousness of Caissar. By eliminating 'frivilous' (sp??) categories, will it help?? (May not, in the case of Best Analysis)>

I think best avatar, user name and funniest kibitzer would be the sort of frivolous categories, and I have thought that perhaps their inclusion does influence the general tone of the voting. OTOH, this site is quite frivoulous in general, and that is one reason for its success. What other site would leave open a player page for Borin Topic So in the past, we've had a lighthearted election of sorts, to recognize some light hearted contributors to the site, and also some serious contributors-Best Analyst, Historian, etc. The BW group violated no rules, but they did violate the spirit of the whole process when they very seriously undertook to hijack a fairly lighthearted election. But, if you were a part of of BW, would you begin to understand why it's okay to beg for votes, but it's not okay to organize a campaign for votes?

No, it's pictures like this that will do it:

No, of course not, that portion of the ad hoc committee starts on the 10th.

That is where the 'search' function fails. Unless we ask fellow members to 'blow the whistle' on lobbying, I think it's too much work.>>

Oh, come on, I'm sure you know better than that. :) Keywords are not the only way to use the Search Kibitzing function. In this context, it's much simpler to take the 'posts by user' route, and scan the recent activity of all the nominees and the other usual suspects. :p The Recent Activity pages are also pretty useful.

And no, you wouldn't actually have to do any of that yourself, nor ask anybody to - it's a safe bet that many others would be quite happy to do it themselves, even without being asked. ;)

<WannaBe: <<Annie K.> I personally have never had problem with self nomination/voting/lobbying. Every politician and their family when going into a voting booth, undoubtly voted for themselves.

Also, all of their family members, friends, lobbied for them. (with possible financial rewards for their work)>>

Last year, I answered a very similar comment about lobbying by <Once> with:

<True - in politics. Thing is, the Caissars didn't usetabe politics.>

He then developed the point further himself (Once chessforum), and I quote:

<Once: <<Jess> I am not so much upset as saddened. In my view, the Caissar's should be a celebration of all that is good about this site. Instead, they have degenerated into an exercise in lobbying, getting your supporters out and mud-slinging about other candidates. And that means that even if you do win there would always be a nagging doubt that you didn't win on your merits. You won because you managed to mobilise more support. It turns just about every Caissar into an award for "best organised" rather than best analyst/ best written/ best whatever.

Once you start down that slippery slope, it can be very difficult to stop. If the only way to win is to mobilise lots of supporters, then we could all start doing it. And where would that leave us? Arguing with each other, fighting, trying to put each other down, criticising each other in public (yes, they are public) forums. And as <Annie K> has said, it turns this site into politics.>>

<crawf: No, it's pictures like this that will do it: >