The reason why we stopped liking paragraphs was because everyone bitched if their vote got rejected. There were a small handful of people reading these essays and all they got in return was crap. So nobody liked writing the paragraphs and nobody liked judging them. I really don't see that changing if we go back to it, and that's ignoring the obvious potential for bias in the system.
With that said, I do like the idea of blind nominations. It prevents the bandwagon effect and makes the process more objective. We've already taken steps to reduce the impact of banhappy users which still exist in huge numbers by allowing mons to be unbanned, by making voting requirements tougher (although I still miss SEXP) and by making a majority of people nominate suspects instead of having one dedicated suspect per round.
I also like the idea of preventing things from being voted on if they're consistently voted OU. If something is voted OU twice in a row then it should not be eligible for one round.
Whatever we do, please let us not go back to a council.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat JabbaTheGriffin
Smith brings up when people bandwagoned on my Reuniclus nomination (which isn't really the case, but let's just go with it). That round, reuniclus received an absolutely pitiful vote (iirc, it received the least Uber votes).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Fireburn
I agree with Jabba's sentiments, I'm really not seeing how these are problems as the community has honestly shown the contrary.
|
I just want to point out that while this might show that the community has been less banhappy as of late, it also shows that bandwagon nominations still happen and it's not even hard to accomplish. I think this thread is more about addressing potential disaster situations rather than saying that there is currently a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins
This.
|
Can you please elaborate