|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 417 OF 749 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-06-11
 | | WannaBe: http://news.yahoo.com/magnitude-3-2... I was already at the GGF track, I thought it was the horses running by me. |
|
Nov-07-11
| | WannaBe: Pac-12 standings...
North Div.
Stanford 7-0
Oregon 6-0
...
...
South Div.
UCLA 4-2
Ariz. St. 4-2
USC 4-2*
...
...
UCLA have tie-breaker over ASU, and UCLA will be at Utah, and then host Colorado, if UCLA can win out, they will get the 'honour' of playing Oregon/Stanford for the inaugural Pac-12 Championship! * USC is on probably, and is not eligible for any bowl/post season play. |
|
Nov-08-11
| | WannaBe: Holy guacamole, gotta check out Rachel! http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story... |
|
Nov-09-11
| | WannaBe: We will start discussing Caissar issues tomorrow. Feel free to add to this list: 0. How does the ad hoc committee reach a solution? Voting? How to break tie? 1. Nomination/voting process. Two steps? Or one?
2. Bloc voting, non-English posting related topics.
3. Self-Nomination/voting/lobbying. (I see this as a non-issue...) Again, feel free to copy/paste/add to the above items. Everyone is welcome. |
|
Nov-09-11
 | | OhioChessFan: It's been mentioned before, and is important, that the advertising of the Awards should be much more aggressive/thourough than previous years. Perhaps an indulgence from CG.C for advertising the voting on GOTD, POTD, World Game if it's still going, etc. |
|
| Nov-09-11 | | hms123: I think <OCF> has a good idea. Perhaps we could divvy up the work a bit with each of us taking 10 or so users and posting an invitation to vote (or nominate--no position on this issue yet). The invitation would be uniform and contain the categories, relevant dates and procedures, etc. I find that this kind of approach gets reasonably good results. |
|
Nov-09-11
| | WannaBe: Forgot to mention, the administrators have agreed to include Caissar in their winter newsletter, due to be sent out mid-Dec. To be in the newsletter, we probably would need to reach an agreement on the starting date for the Caissar process. Then notify admins to include us in the eNewsLetter. |
|
Nov-10-11
| | WannaBe: Alright, let's address the zero-th issue. =)
All decision shall be voted upon? In case of a tie, we go with status quo? (No changes.) Everyone will have one vote, and I will have 10,000 votes? =) |
|
Nov-10-11
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: Issue -1: How are we going to decide on issue 0?
I think <WannaBe> should make all the final decisions once we've all pooled our wisdom together. He's the one in charge here, after all; more importantly, he's the one people will be shouting at if we make the wrong decisions, so we shouldn't make them without his approval :-) |
|
| Nov-10-11 | | valiant: <WannaBe: All decision shall be voted upon?> Ok, thanks.
On the category "committee!!" -- I vote for my neighbour SwitchingQuylthulg. |
|
| Nov-10-11 | | hms123: <WannaBe> I agree with <Switch>. You should use your judgment based on the discussion. We could take non-binding straw votes if they would be helpful. |
|
Nov-10-11
| | OhioChessFan: Every time I comment, I have this uncomfortable feeling that we're talking it all a little too seriously. Okay, now that I've moved past that, I will agree that <Wannabe> should just go with it after our input. May I humbly suggest, dear readers, that the people involved in this discussion are pretty much a clique? It is a somewhat self selecting clique, a group of people with interest in this site beyond a useful tool for chess improvement, but a clique regardless. If I go to the various forums or off topic pages or whatever, to a large degree I am going to see the same people posting on the forums or responses to everyone else involved in this discussion. I don't know what to do with that information, I don't think it's bad, but I do think it needs to be recognized. Anyway, that's why I think a vote wouldn't be a good idea. |
|
Nov-10-11
| | WannaBe: Okay, I think I've notified everyone that I can think of that made comments, when this first 'broke' out back in January... <Annie K.> and her majesty have not yet posted. Anyone else who have not yet posted? That I missed? I would like and appreciate everyone/body's input. As I consider this to be somewhat of an important thing to continue and wish to maintain its intergrity. <Domdaniel> Think I forgot him... Was <Eyal> involved in the initial January discussion? |
|
| Nov-11-11 | | twinlark: What Howard said. |
|
Nov-11-11
 | | Annie K.: Great news on the newsletter!
Agree with <Switch> and <Ohio>. We have all made our cases, and beyond that, voting is not the way to go. Also, no committees, plz. <WannaBe>, if you ever seriously want to pass the buck, please ask <chessgames.com> to take it over themselves, just as they once took over <cu8sfan>'s initiative, when it got too big for him to handle, that is today the ChessBookie game. They could set it up as a site-wide poll, as they did the one back in 2005, and they could get some serious participant numbers, for meaningful results. Otherwise, run it according to your own best judgment. :) |
|
Nov-11-11
| | OhioChessFan: http://rlv.zcache.com/proud_members... |
|
Nov-11-11
| | WannaBe: Jumping to item #2, because it's more of just an announcement. As you have read in my earlier post. Mr. Freeman have told me via email that an announcement in the winter newsletter would not be a problem. We just need to give him info on the event. |
|
Nov-11-11
| | WannaBe: 1a. Voting process to be shortened to be a one-stop/shop procedure? Continue as a two-step more work involved with voters? In cases such as 'Profile' and 'Written Post', nomination does allow (premium) members to look it up and make a decision. 1b. By having a one-step it does curtail some of the lobbying down to just a single 24-hour period. Instead of possibly a week-long process. |
|
Nov-11-11
| | OhioChessFan: <1a. Voting process to be shortened to be a one-stop/shop procedure?> No. No. No.
<Continue as a two-step more work involved with voters?> Yes.
<1b. By having a one-step it does curtail some of the lobbying down to just a single 24-hour period. Instead of possibly a week-long process.> If people want to lobby, they will, be it 24 hours or a week. |
|
Nov-11-11
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: Item #1a... I think the current system is slightly better. A one-step system would certainly have some advantages - it would simplify things for not only voters but <WannaBe> as well. As <WannaBe> pointed out it could conceivably cut down on lobbying too, but I'm with <OhioChessFan> in not thinking it would help much there. With the exception of <TD>'s campaign (which, supposing there will be one, would probably keep running even with this simpler process) almost all the lobbying has traditionally taken place on the voting day anyhow. The major advantage of the current system is that by voting day, all voters will have a clear list of candidates before their eyes. No chance of a good candidate being simply forgotten. With a one-step system it won't be enough if somebody remembers a worthy name halfway through the process - someone else will already have runaway momentum. (Since being remembered from the word go would be crucial, this could actually encourage people thinking of themselves as candidates to lobby or self-vote - and increase the advantage of those vain enough to do so. Not at all sure we want that to happen.) One might think a seriously good candidate would never be really forgotten, yet over the years, quite a few eventual winners or leading candidates have been nearly overlooked in the nomination phase. Last year we got one winner who hadn't been nominated at all (at least under that name - does it count if your sock is nominated?) and another winner saved by what can only be described as a n00b nomination. |
|
Nov-11-11
| | Annie K.: This is not really a make-or-break issue for me. Although I think that if somebody nominates, and then forgets to return to vote, their nominations should count as votes. |
|
| Nov-11-11 | | hms123: <Annie>
I think your suggestion has a flaw. What if I nominate more than one person in a category and then don't return to vote? Do I get n votes in that category? I suppose that you could give each nominee 1/n votes. That seems to create more work unnecessarily. |
|
Nov-11-11
| | Annie K.: <hms> This is already how it works when you vote for more than one person. |
|
| Nov-11-11 | | hms123: <Annie>
I know that, but I might want to nominate more than one person just to get them on the list, but then still intend to vote for only one of them. Suppose the category were <best cat avatar>. I might want to list as many as I could, but only want to vote for yours. :-) |
|
Nov-11-11
| | Annie K.: <hms> in that case, you should remember to come back at voting time, and vote for just me. ;) Otherwise it would be logical to assume that everybody you nominated are your candidates that you intended to vote for too. As things stand, if you nominate but don't come back to vote, <nobody> gets your vote. How is that better? :) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 417 OF 749 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
