|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Definitely 5 or 7, that should give most everyone enough time to vote, whereas 3 is very short and easily missed by some. And leaving it open till we have a clear winner is no good either.
|
|
|
|
|
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary

|
|
As I said with the nomination process, 7 days here as well. If it's a tie, then wait until exactly 7 days have gone right up until the last minute so it's exactly 7 days to be fair. No closing it at 6 and a half days to prevent a tie, it should be exactly 7 days to the minute, and if it's a tie it's a tie...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Or with a joined-win, we had 2 people winning before and I don't see a problem with that since some month there have been 2 posters who are equally good.
|
|
|
|
|
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary

|
|
Do we want to continue that, or do we want to prevent it from happening again?
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Well, that's a good question, considering it only ever happened 3 times all together.
|
|
|
|
|
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary

|
|
Here's a question: If someone wins in a tie, are they allowed to win again within whatever time period we finally decide on? Seems like something that might generate controversy in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Only if they win again in a tie causing it to be one whole win for the 12 month of course  No, just kidding, a win is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
But is 1 vote clear cut?
|
|
|
|
|
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary

|
|
We should have a cut-off time, after which one vote will decide the winner in the case of a tie. Either five or seven days works from my perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
 
|
|
Three days; in recent months I'd started editing polls so they closed after three days; I was fed up of being accused of favouritism when I closed it when somebody I liked was in the lead 
I recall this happening a few times, not necessarily recently. I wasn't aware that you felt that way Tweek; I assumed it was off-hand remarks because people were disappointed their favorite hadn't won, and then they got over it. From my perspective, waiting for a "clear-cut" winner usually worked itself out, although there are quite a few instances where the vote was close enough by 1 vote that it kept swapping repeatedly. With PEEL 2.0 features, we can set limits on polls, and even edit in new polls for tie-breakers, and now that I think over all the material, this may be the best way to do it. In my mind, this would be more of a guideline for whomever makes the thread/poll in the first place, but could be forgotten and left alone if nobody cared enough either way... but defining it sharply with a set number of days does sound enticing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
If we need a clear winner I say we rather have a tie-breaker poll than "whoever gets the 1st tie break vote after the time limit wins". That could easily abused by people using fake accounts/secondary accounts, if anyone wanted to do so. Rather have everyone who cares caste their vote for one of the 2 (or more) people in the tie again.
|
|
|
|
|
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary

|
|
That works. Agreement is fun!
|
|
|
|
|
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary

|
|
I said clear winner and by that I mean they have a minimum percentage of voting population, like 30% or something.
|
|
|
|
|
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
 
|
|
If we need a clear winner I say we rather have a tie-breaker poll than "whoever gets the 1st tie break vote after the time limit wins". That could easily abused by people using fake accounts/secondary accounts, if anyone wanted to do so. Rather have everyone who cares caste their vote for one of the 2 (or more) people in the tie again.
I concur with what you said. However, I don't agree with your reasons. You don't honestly think mArc allows a rampant problem like fake accounts to parade about on his message board.... do you? Furthermore, if there were any fake accounts... do you honestly think that their pre-occupation is to try and influence POTM?
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Some people have secondary accounts that everyone knows of (like Nasty & chay [and no I don't think they'd do it]), so the possibility that someone else has one is not zero.
Also you can easily make a new account quickly. So if you are tied in 1st place and really want to win you could easily influence that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Of course, but it's still nicer if we'd have a new tie-breaker poll so everyone could cast their choice again. Only needs to stay open for 24 (or max 48) hours anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary

|
|
Five days, five days, get your nominations up in five days. Everybody's looking forward to voting on the weekend, weekend...
|
|
|
|
|
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary

|
|
Some people have secondary accounts that everyone knows of (like Nasty & chay [and no I don't think they'd do it]) I never knew that  ...
|
|
|
|
|