|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 452 OF 749 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-13-12 | | avialbo: helpful: <dzechiel> |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Colonel Mortimer: <frogbert:> <but what does it mean?> It's called tribal voting - it seems that people are voting according to tribal affiliation, not according to merit. |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | FSR: Unofficial vote totals so far:
<Most Informed>:
8.333 tpstar
6.833 cro777
6 Softpaw
4.5 Domdaniel
3 wordfunph
2 FSR
1.333 Rogge
1 chessgames.com, frogbert, hms123, matebay
.333 Achieve, Bureaucrat, OhioChessFan
<Most Helpful>:
7.5 hms123
6 frogbert
5.5 dzechiel
4 FSR
3 WannaBe
2.5 twinlark
2 Annie K., SwitchingQuylthulg
1.5 WinKing
1 Domdaniel, LIFE Master AJ, spawn2, tpstar, Travis Bickle, wordfunph .5 AylerKupp, sastre, YouRang |
|
Jan-13-12
| | FSR: <<<<<<frogbert: it looks like "status quo" will reign also after the 2nd to last day of the 2012 caissar votings; with the current category leaders (assuming fsr's numbers are fairly accurate), 10 of 10 of the caissars will have gone to winners of some category in a previous year. that's not necessarily bad, but what does it mean?> Colonel Mortimer:> frogbert: but what does it mean?> It's called tribal voting - it seems that people are voting according to tribal affiliation, not according to merit.>Here's a theme song for them:>
I'm in with the in crowd
I go where the in crowd goes
I'm in with the in crowd
And I know what the in crowd knows
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
Dressing fine, making time
We breeze up and down the street
We get respect from the people we meet
They make way day or night
They know the in crowd is out of sight> |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | technical draw: Tribal voting, tribal affiliation, lol!. I think you're all trying to get a head start for next year's funniest kibitzer! The only tribes I know are the Apaches, the Comanches and the Pueblo. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Colonel Mortimer: <technical draw:> <Tribal voting, tribal affiliation, lol!. I think you're all trying to get a head start for next year's funniest kibitzer!> Maybe, but I still won't vote for myself if nominated again. |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | WannaBe: Here is a recap of the past winners...
::Best Avatar::
2004: <tamar>
2005: <tamar> & <YouRang> 2006: <Phoni Benoni> & <technical draw> & <Yelena Dembo> 2007: <Red October> 2008: <technical draw> 2009: <Red October> 2010: <Travis Bickle> 2011: Hare Brain
::Best User Profile::
2004: <nikolaas>
2005: <larkser>
2006: <Hezam7>
2007: <jessicafischerqueen> 2008: <malthrope>
2009: <malthrope>
2010: <malthrope>
::Best Game Collection::
2004: <Benjamin Lau> 2005: <RonB52734>
2006: <suenteus po 147> 2007: <suenteus po 147> 2008: <KingG>
2009: <Phoni Benoni> 2010: <crawfb5>
::Best Historian::
2004: <SBC>
2005: <benzol> & <SBC> 2006: <Resignation Trap> 2007: <nescio>
2008: <malthrope>
2009: <malthrope>
2010: <jessicafischerqueen> ::Best User Name::
2004: <suenteus po 147> 2005: <tpstardefender> & <Hannibal Schlecter> & <suenteus po 147> 2006: <iamwellatchess> 2007: <Resignation Trap> 2008: <Woody Wood Pusher> 2009: <VaselineTopLove> & <whatthefat> & <ILikeFruits> 2010: <SwitchingQuylthulg> & <jessicafischerqueen> & <Once> |
|
Jan-13-12
| | WannaBe: ::Best Written Post::
2004: <IMlday>
2005: <tpstar>
2006: <JoeWms> & <tpstar> & <MahmoudKubba> 2007: <Domdaniel>
2008: <Domdaniel>
2009: <GoSo>
2010: <Domdaniel>
::Funniest Kibitzer::
2004: <offtramp> & <Lawrence> 2005: <tpstar>
2006: <WannaBe>
2007: <technical draw> 2008: <technical draw> 2009: <technical draw> 2010: <technical draw> ::Most Constructive::
2004: <iron maiden> 2005: <cu8sfan>
2006: <Sneaky> & <twinlark> 2007: <brankat>
2008: <Red October> 2009: <hms123>
2010: <chancho>
::Best Informed::
2004: <acirce>
2005: <acirce>
2006: <acirce>
2007: <acirce>
2008: <percyblakeney> 2009: <achieve>
2010: <wordfunh>
::Best Analysis::
2004: <Honza Cervanka> 2005: <patzer2>
2006: <Honza Cervanka> 2007: <mateo>
2008: <Eyal>
2009: <Eyal>
2010: <Iskubadayb>
::Most Helpful::
2004: <tpstar>
2005: <tpstar>
2006: <WannaBe>
2007: <WannaBe>
2008: <hms123> & <brankat> 2009: <zanshin>
2010: <Phony Benoni> |
|
Jan-13-12
| | WannaBe: <jessicafischerqueen> Yeah, time to step down... First time was 2006, and <nikolaas> only did/lasted for 2 of them! (2004/2005 =) Search for replacement once all the voting ends. |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | Domdaniel: Some voters have helpfully mentioned that their experience - and thus their judgment of the various categories - is mostly confined to a particular area of CG, such as the POTD or the World games. This isn't tribal voting. It's a judgment call on merit within a particular context. There is *some* tribal voting - where the voter's main concern is that 'one of us' gets the award, and the 'us' can be a nationality, an ethnicity, a political stance, etc. But the tribal element seems relatively muted. It's not surprising that winners should have featured in the awards before: it's a version of the incumbent effect. Since there are no debates between candidates or advertising to promote them, long-time members have higher visibility. Not that visibility is everything, as Eye can tell you. |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | OhioChessFan: Most helpful <hms123> <YouRang> |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | Annie K.: <Search for replacement once all the voting ends.> No. Hand it over to <cg.com> to run themselves - they are the proper authority, and it's well over high time for that. They have the poll program to automate the whole thing (they did a site-wide poll in 2005), they have the IP data to detect actual sockpuppet accounts (as they are relied on to do for the World vs GM games move votes), and these are *their* site's awards. They took over the ChessBookie, which was also a private initiative originally (<cu8sfan>'s), they should take over the Caissars as well. The site had grown too big for such a poll to be conducted by any member, or even a committee of members. It's the only sensible way to go. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | wordfunph: helpful <hms123>
informed <cro777> |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | technical draw: <Maybe, but I still won't vote for myself if nominated again.> Then you won't be playing by the rules because the rules allow for self voting. |
|
Jan-13-12
| | Domdaniel: I agree wiv Annie.
Quelle surprise.
But yeah, let CG do the work. And 23 cheers for that heroic Wabbit. |
|
Jan-13-12
| | WannaBe: Current Count:
<Best Informed>
9.3333 <tpstar>, 7.8333 <cro777>, 6 <softpaw>, 4.5 <Domdaniel>, 3 <wordfunph>, 2 <FSR>, 1.3333 <rogge>, 1 <matebay, hms123, chessgames.com>, 0.3333 <OhioChessFan, achieve, bureaucrat> <Helpful>
9 <hms123>, 6 <frogbert>, 5.5 <dzechiel>, 4 <FSR>, 3 <WannaBe>, 2 <switchingquylthulg, tpstar, Annie K.>, 1.5 <WinKing>, 1 <spawn2, wordfunph, LIFE Master AJ, Domdaniel, YouRang>, 0.5 <AylerKupp, sastre, Travis Bickle> |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | frogbert: <It's not surprising that winners should have featured in the awards before: it's a version of the incumbent effect. Since there are no debates between candidates or advertising to promote them, long-time members have higher visibility.> dom, while the above certainly makes sense, i think it misses the most eye-catching explanation - that is, if seen by (in this context) mostly fresh eyes: way too many of the categories are essentially <personal> ones: a kibitzer is nominated and people vote for a certain kibitzer. the focus is the kibitzer, not a specific achievement or contribution by the kibitzer during the calendar year of interest. if one compares to the oscar's for instance, it's as if (nearly) all categories where some variant of "best actor" not limited to films of the past year. the consequence is that one ends up voting for one's favourites with lesser emphasis on objective merit, while being clearly influenced by who one's friends are (for very natural reasons). i agree that the "tribal element" is quite limited, but the way the categories don't highlight specific contributions (but instead persons), make it rather hard for a voter who would try to do as neutral an assessment of the nominations as possible. the alternatives can't be inspected or compared, and it's essentially reduced to some variant of who knows who. <this isn't necessarily bad, but what does it mean?> as i said initially, it's not necessarily bad with all the repeat winners - that depends on the perceived purpose of the "competition" - but i think that what i <highlighted in the above> is what it really means. thanks to those who offered their views on the subject. may i suggest that before the caissars are handed over to cg.com (but <after> this year's voting is completed), we - and that means everyone who's interested and cares - take a moment to discuss how appropriate & fruitful
& useful & helpful & constructive the current caissar categories are if the purpose is to vitalize and strengthen the wider cg.com community and to encourage relative newcomers to contribute in a positive way. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Colonel Mortimer: <technical draw:> <Then you won't be playing by the rules because the rules allow for self voting.> Oh it's in the rules is it? That makes it okay then. And there I was foolishly thinking it had something to do with honour. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | frogbert: <Current Count:>
where did the 2.5 votes for <twinlark> for most helpful go, wannabe? |
|
Jan-13-12
| | WannaBe: <frogbert> Ooops, you are correct. <Best Informed>
9.3333 <tpstar>, 7.8333 <cro777>, 6 <softpaw>, 4.5 <Domdaniel>, 3 <wordfunph>, 2 <FSR>, 1.3333 <rogge>, 1 <matebay, hms123, chessgames.com>, 0.3333 <OhioChessFan, achieve, bureaucrat> <Helpful>
9 <hms123>, 6 <frogbert>, 5.5 <dzechiel>, 4 <FSR>, 3 <WannaBe>, 2.5 <twinlark>, 2 <switchingquylthulg, tpstar, Annie K.>, 1.5 <WinKing>, 1 <spawn2, wordfunph, LIFE Master AJ, Domdaniel, YouRang>, 0.5 <AylerKupp, sastre, Travis Bickle> |
|
Jan-13-12
| | WannaBe: <Colonel Mortimer> So, when Obama goes to vote, who does he vote for? Does he then not with honour? |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | frogbert: wannabe, how much does one vote count for obama? how much does one vote count here? argument dismissed. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Colonel Mortimer: <WannaBe:> Voting for oneself for the Presidential office is very different to self-voting for an accolade such as 'funniest kibitzer'. The comparison is flawed. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | technical draw: <Colonel> This is a chess site , a game played by the rules. I played someone who didn't like the en passant move. He didn't play it or allow it. Would it be dishonorable to play en passant against him? Rules are rules. And if you were a real Colonel you would know that. Honour schamanour, it's more like sour grapes.... |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Colonel Mortimer: <technical draw:> Don't get upset. You continue voting for yourself and I'll continue not voting for myself. Let's leave it there. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 452 OF 749 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
