Weekend Task #21: Celebrating

[Levina de Ruijter]

Levina, I also wonder why we need Rule 5. Why not allow voters fewer than 3 choices - as long as no more than 3? A ballot isn't spoiled if you choose to vote for the mayor and skip the councillors (or the dog-catcher!)

I think Rule #5 is important because it creates a more level playing field as more contestants have a chance of winning.

Let’s say you have contestant A and B.
After all votes have been counted save one, A has 11 points, B has 10 points.
Say the last voter awards only one vote, to contestant C. Then A has won.
But if he has to cast 3 votes he might have awarded 2 points to B, thus making B the winner.
Or he might have awarded 1 point to B, which would tie A and B.

In short, the #2 and #3 votes can influence the outcome of the competition and increases everyone’s chance of winning. The Fixed-lens Photo Challenge votes in the same manner and I am sure for the same reason.

 

[EdC]

I also argue that Rule 5 is redundant. I can see two circumstances in which it is impossible to implement. Case 1: There are only two entries. Rule 5 means that no one can vote and no one can win. Case 2: Only one or two entries actually conform to the topic defined. How can one give third place to an ineligible entry? Case 1 is probably the critical one. But I don't feel religiously about it.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I also argue that Rule 5 is redundant. I can see two circumstances in which it is impossible to implement. Case 1: There are only two entries. Rule 5 means that no one can vote and no one can win. Case 2: Only one or two entries actually conform to the topic defined. How can one give third place to an ineligible entry? Case 1 is probably the critical one. But I don't feel religiously about it.

If there would only be 2 entries then naturally Rule #5 would be overruled by necessity, like it sometimes happened in the Fixed-Lens Photo Week challenge on POTN. Or the competition could be extended until such time when there are at least 3 entries (which also happened on POTN). We will cross that bridge when we come to it. It depends on how the forum will fare. We are small and there is no telling if people stay interested in WET. Time will tell.

As to whether an entry is eligible or not is really not for voters to decide but for the host. Voters vote and that is all. If you feel you can't choose three images -for whatever reason- then do what Jan did: don't vote.

I don't quite get why Rule #5 is suddenly in question. It had been in place for what? 2 decades on POTN, although, granted, as an unwritten rule. So why it is suddenly a problem?

 

[greatgrandma]

Probably because no one noticed it before. It would also be a problem if there were only 3 entries, because you can't vote for yourself, or at least I thought that was also a rule.

I'm thinking that maybe having to vote for three would help reduce favoritism- she never votes for me so I won't vote for her (or the opposite).

 

[Jack Dawe]

I don't quite get why Rule #5 is suddenly in question.

Quite. All the rule it needs is qualifying. Something like "5. Voters must cast 3 votes. Any fewer and the votes will be discarded. The only exception is if there are fewer entires in which case all must be included in the votes;"

I don't think an ineligible photo necessarily precludes voting on it: if here are too few entries to ignore it, just place it last.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Probably because no one noticed it before. It would also be a problem if there were only 3 entries, because you can't vote for yourself, or at least I thought that was also a rule.

Yes, that is a rule too. But if there are 3 entries contestants can only vote twice. That's just the way it is. But others can vote three times.

I'm thinking that maybe having to vote for three would help reduce favoritism- she never votes for me so I won't vote for her (or the opposite).

That never crossed my mind, but yes, could be. In any case, I think we should keep the three votes.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Quite. All the rule it needs is qualifying. Something like "5. Voters must cast 3 votes. Any fewer and the votes will be discarded. The only exception is if there are fewer entires in which case all must be included in the votes;"

I'll edit rule #5 accordingly. Thanks, Jason.