View Single Post
Old 09-01-2015, 10:36 AM   #184
MikeB1972
Gnu
MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,222
Karma: 15625359
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Device: BeBook,JetBook Lite,PRS-300-350-505-650,+ran out of space to type
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer View Post
Well sure. But the organization and logistics involved in a multi-headed campaign like that would be harder to pull off. "Everyone nominate these" is trivial compared to "You nominate these and you other yous nominate these others (making sure there are sufficient numbers for each subcampain)."

@pdurrant: which other proposal were you referring to? None of them really struck me as unworthy--with the exception of the one proposed rule change to ensure a single, specific movie would still be elegible.
I'm guessing pdurrant is talking about the rule where you get 1 point per category for a nomination and it is split between all your nominations.
So if you vote for 5 things each is worth a 1/5 of a point in the initial nomination. As works are excluded in the run-off you still have a full point (So if you nominated 5 things and only 2 are left in the run-off then each would be worth 0.5 point).

This seems the most likely to defeat slate nominating in my mind.
MikeB1972 is offline   Reply With Quote