Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
No, you are implying that part of the puppy slate nominators/voters did not read every book they nominated while everybody else did 100%. Unless there is a rule in place that prohibits (not merely encourages) that a book has to be read. Are you quite certain that every "no award" resulted from the voter actually reading the complete slate (in a category)? Not just a few that claim they did so, but all of them. If you think it is not morally necessary to read through a book to vote "no award", but it is for nominating, then you are on a really slippery road.
Every rule change to discourage, disable, not allow slate voting that is put in place will effectively take away campaigning. That would, have to agree with Harry there, take away part of the democratic nature of the nominating / voting process.
|
I am not implying anything of the sort. I wanted to understand the opinion. And I am sure that people nominated books and other work without reading them. Or for just political reasons.
If you think voting with the intention to destroy an award is OK I think you have a disgusting opinion. Refusing to state that you think this kind of voting is wrong is just for me confirmation that you have this kind of opinion.