Forum:A Proposal for -otY awards that you can find in your gutter

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A Proposal for -otY awards that you can find in your gutter

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4457 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Last year, there was this guy named Aleister in Chains who won Writer of the Year. A bunch of people voted, and the voting was very close. It seemed, for much of the month, that all three were doomed to tie. However, the final tally was Aleister with 13, and Sog with 12, and Mhaille with 11. Apart from those three, there were 11 other votes cast. Frankly, there should have been a runoff.

Aleister's victory was earned, but Sog and Mhaille's defeat wasn't.

Something should be in place to prevent an event of the same nature from happening again, where the top X candidates are gridlocked and any random last-second vote could catapult one over the other. A runoff is a fair and balanced solution to this dilemma.

I propose, in the event that the leading nominee hasn't captured over 66% percent of the total vote by month's end in any -Of The Year award, the vote is extended another 10 days into the next month (happily coinciding with the Top 10 countdown). The leading nominee, plus any additional nominees who came within at least half of his leading total, will be the only eligible candidates during the runoff. The leading nominee at the end of the runoff is the final, final victor. So, for example, in the previous example, the 11 users who cast their votes for additional nominees will have to vote for Sog, Aleister or Mhaille. The goal is to get a better consensus and a clearer victory. Basically, it's the VFS system-ish, but everyone can vote during the last round (jealous, Shabidoo?)

To account for ties: well, I haven't quite figured that out yet. But, like on VFS, if there are two obvious potential winners, and they appear to be in a complete tie at the end of the month, then let them have it. Same if it's three ways. But this system is in place to account for the small discrepancies that prevent these wonderful, very rare occasions from happening.

It isn't a waterproof system, but I think it's better than the one we have right now, which seems to be breeding unstable, hairline finishes. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Questions, Concerns, Comments

If this gets enough support, I suggest we implement it immediately. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Why isn't it a waterproof system? Could we not just hold the vote inside? --ChiefjusticePSX 09:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

  The den's being fumigated -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:09, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

• This is America. Except when we're not, we're first-past-the-post here. And, yes, that's also a reference to gayhomomansex act, but that's neither here nor there. Which is also a gay reference. In short (also gay reference), the system (gay), while occasionally unfair, appearing to be unfair or brutal to foreigners and/or people with foreign sounding names, is simple, which works pretty well for the dullards, boobs and ne'er-do-wells that infest this particular corner of the internet, one that's widely known to be a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and also this is a long sentence and a lot of commas. If I had a point (last gay reference, ironically itself also a gay reference) I think I've made it. That being said, since I'm not around all that much I won't raise a fuss if others disagree with whatever, once parsed, my foolish and irrelevant opinion turned out to be. In any event, it Mhaille should've won. That magnificent, husky bastard so rarely gets his due, even when he eats thirty hotdogs or thirty eggs or thirty pies in a single sitting or that one time all at once what I'm saying is that he's a pig my god the man is a pig but don't get me wrong he's a saint a big burly saint and he wouldn't hurt a fly except for that one time and also I'm out of commas. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:04, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Aleister suggested a fine idea on my talk page: bar IPs from voting on Year Awards. I think it's a nice idea, too. So nice that I think I could start a vote right now. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any of the end of year awards as a winner take all award. I think Aleister is a phenomenal writer but he doesn't represent 2010 writing for me...and I doubt for anyone else. I also think Lyrithya totally deserves to be Uncyclopedian of the year, but she wont even let people vote for her. End of the year awards is a chance for people to give each other tons of positive feed back and to make someone a figurehead for all of the good writing and hard work on the wiki. I don't think its necessary to have a run off vote, and having that run-off vote may also make the whole thing seem more cut throat. But if users (and admins as well) want a run-off, its not a big deal either. Let there be a run-off, but let everyone have one vote and one vote only (minus IPs). --ShabiDOO 05:30, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

No IPs on Big Awards

Score: +10

• IPs on VFH is fine, IPs on Monthly awards is okay too. But the stakes are a lot higher on yearly awards, it can't be trusted to interfering IPs, many of which are "one-and-done" voters of the suspicious variety. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
• Whew, if this had been in effect last year I would have lost by 5 votes (thanks ma, sis--fuck you dad--and the gang down at the Halloween Yoga Juice Bar). But yes, these awards count for too much for unknowns to enter into them. Aleister 22:03 8-1-'12
• Yeah. -- The Zombiebaron 22:08, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
• IPs aren't involved that much in the site anyway or else they would've joined so I doubt that they would really know who to vote for. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 22:10, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. I can go along with this. Support also the idea that the annual awards could be done by a top two run off. See how it goes. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 00:01, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
• I'll go along with this...as I think any IP user who has established themselves and simply don't want a username, would be recognised as such and would be allowed to vote on end of year stuff. --ShabiDOO 05:25, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
• For both ideas. So am I more or less likely to win now? --Black Flamingo 14:59, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Not if I forget to log in before voting for you, bucko. -- 2K12_DAN.VRS 23:07, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
•  I guess. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:51, 11 January 2012
• General apathy Given my IP address changes as often as I could be bothered changing it, and I've seen voter fraud committed by sockpuppetry and recruiting user to join from other sites, my level of concern on this is negligible. The proposed system is breakable, and given the inclination I could get around it and give myself a plethora of votes with no major hassle. The idea that we will make exceptions for IPs that for some reason or another can't have an account has already been raised as there has been no objection. There was a relevant argument last year due to my voting apathy and choice to not actually say for which could have seen the WotY being shared, but was dismissed out of hand by the admin who handed the awards out. And so far I haven't been able to use any of my Uncyc awards as collateral for a loan. So this is a storm in a teacup, except that the overall feeling of apathy means that it's more like a summer shower in a teacup. But if you want to introduce it, I have no objection. Pup 01:54 12 Jan '12