Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
I think a 6-month hiatus between nominations is eminently reasonable....
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
...if there are no strong objections, here is the rule:
Quote:
|
Any book that has received three nominations during a nomination period is automatically disqualified from being re-nominated for a period of six months.
|
... |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
I object if this 6-month rule includes books nominated that did not make it to the vote. I'm OK with it if it's only for books that make it to the vote but do not win.
|
And a good objection it is; which is why I stated, "Any book that has received
three nominations during a nomination period..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
With the size of some of the tombs being nominated, I'd like more time then less time.
|
I agree, but was outvoted. The issue is now dead until near the end of 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
What I think is that we should not have any run-off vote if the winning vote gets an overwhelming majority vs the 2nd place book. There's no need.
|
I've already stated my reasons for having the 2nd poll no matter what. That way no one will be able to complain that
if the second poll had taken place, the result might have been different. On the bright side, if one book is certain to win, why not buy it before the second vote even starts and get a head start reading it? —Unless, perhaps, you fear that the run-off vote might change the outcome, in which case it was necessary after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Why is it we are making things more complicated and causing it to take longer? We now have added a second vote that we don't actually need.
|
I agree, but was outvoted. The issue is now dead until near the end of 2012. (
Didn't I just say that? Why am I repeating myself? 
)