Originally Posted by
Isphera
I'm posting this in open discussion so it can be replied to by everyone and so I can keep B1 closed. Since I can only post right now, the edits will come into being when I get home this evening. I also implore you to read the whole post before responding.
As I'm sure many of you have seen, my decision to award the tiebreak to Soe over Melissa Clarke has drawn a large negative reaction from the community. Whilst some of the critisism for it has in my opinion been unjustified (the notion of bias in particular), the one that has reasoning is in reference to the tiebreak rule for the first round. As the rule is written currently, it says that polls are extended until a final vote has been cast. In retrospect and having gone through the current issue, this is not what I intended with thstbrule, as it allows for too much manipulation to the first person to get on TS, Steam etc. and pursu
ade someone to vote. Had I written it better, it would be a fixed period of time, after which an alternate method be used to decide a winner. This is what I tried for this poll and that has lead to where we are at now.
As it is not currently the rule, I will accept that correct proceedure would have been to extend the poll until a final vote, which would have been Setsoru, who has voted for Melissa Clarke. As such, the poll will now end in favor or Melissa by 1. Edits will be made this evening. This is been done on the simple basis of following the rule as written. Personally, I feel that the rule is quite vague and will change it for next years DWPS to a similar method as detailed below. Any suggestions would be appreciated. As such a detailed explination has been given for the reasoning behind this decision, I will no longer comment on this.
I would just like to say one final thing, regarding the aforementioned accusations of bias. I do this DWPS for two reasons. One is that is some fun which can create some friendly banter between us and give people (read: excoundrel) an excuse to perv out a lol bit. The second, and most important imo, is to get activity on these forums, hoping that when people post on these polls they read or post themselves. If I am biased in my dealings as the poll runner, then it completly destroys those two aims, making the entire thing pointless. I enjoy doing this because if gives the community a talking point at a time when activity has been waning. Had it been the case that Melissa was winning 6-5 until the last hour before a tie, she would have won after the extention. Yet because it provided a result which blurred my role as poll runner and a voter, I'm accused of rigging polls. I have no problem with people joking that I change brackets in my favour or whatever, but I do have a problem with actual accusations of fixing polls and rules in favor of my nominations and favoured candidates. It's not a lot of work to do this, but it does take a degree of organisation to do and I really don't appreciate it when all I get every other poll is grief. Thus I would be grateful if the use of that reason of critisism would stop.
/rant, please keep all open chat in this thread.
Reply With Quote
Spoiler: 
Bookmarks