Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
I think you missed the plot (as they say in the UK).
What happened now was that every book had votes. The votes were a lot closer. We didn't have any of the "choosing a book because the others didn't have enough votes". We've had people admit they voted because of the way the votes were going and not for what they really wanted. So yes, fair is the exact and correct word. This vote was fair. It was not railroaded by who voted for what or how many votes. This vote was FAIR.
I'm sorry you seem to think that everything I am in favor of has to have an ulterior motive. But that's just not so. It was just very obvious (if you'd take off your blinders) that the voting wasn't actually impartial. Once we had enough votes, we may as well have only had 1 or 2 books nominated. It didn't work. It wasn't what people wanted. They voted for what had a chance to win. That's not how it should have been.
|
I agree with Jon, here. His use of the word "fair" equals "more accurate" or more specifically "less influenced". He does not mean "unjust".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Sure we didn't have the campaigning. But we did have some fun discussion. Heck, I even got to make a countdown timer. The results were the closest they have been in a long time (if ever). So I do think the blind vote worked. It achieved the result of the winning book being the one more people wanted and not because other books had no hope in hell of winning.
|
I do not miss the campaigning per se, but, as others have stated (myself included) discussion of the various choices is fun.
To clarify, I prefer the "Here is why I think we will enjoy this book" posts over the "Hey vote for this not for that" posts.