| rdfs:comment
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ Hello everyone. As we all know, there is a rule when it comes to UoTM voting that states there must be a waiting period of (3 days?) before any votes can be cast. I suggest we add that same rule, or a similar one, to the voting procedures for FFS and FFA. The way it is now, votes can easily be cast for the first fanon/fanon article nominated, and this series/article can take an early lead that is nearly impossible to beat before another nomination is even made. If we make the system more like the UoTM, there would be a chance for more than one nomination to be made before anyone is allowed to vote. 23:52, November 13, 2013 (UTC)
|
| abstract
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ Hello everyone. As we all know, there is a rule when it comes to UoTM voting that states there must be a waiting period of (3 days?) before any votes can be cast. I suggest we add that same rule, or a similar one, to the voting procedures for FFS and FFA. The way it is now, votes can easily be cast for the first fanon/fanon article nominated, and this series/article can take an early lead that is nearly impossible to beat before another nomination is even made. If we make the system more like the UoTM, there would be a chance for more than one nomination to be made before anyone is allowed to vote. 23:52, November 13, 2013 (UTC) Not that I don't think it makes sense when you put it the way you do, but has this ever been a problem in the past? I can't think of an instance off the top of my head when a user wanted to nominate something but was intimidated from doing so because another fanon was already in the running with a few votes. How do we know this will open up the process with s lottle window in the beginning? Users can also change their votes later on, I might add, so any lead is vulnerable to a new nominee. 04:54, November 14, 2013 (UTC) I don't see any reason why not. It's not because we don't know about it, that it has not happened before. It likely hasn't happened just because the other nominator dropped their nomination with the reasoning "oh, the other fanon already has X votes, this would be pointless, I'll try again next month". Also, while it is true that people can change their votes, it is not a common practice as changing a vote in something so personal to the author will be perceived to be rude by many since the author would likely be hurt with the retraction of the vote -no matter what the reasoning given is. As such, many people would not cross their vote even though they might believe the other nomination is better. But sure, these are also just hypothetical thought processes, but since the reason not to go for it for now is also a purely hypothetical one and there are obvious benefits to having the waiting period, I don't see why we couldn't go through with it. 09:57, November 14, 2013 (UTC) I like this idea. It gives people a chance to actually read the story too, before making a decision. As most people who regularly use the FFA/FFA/UotM system, they'll know most of the nominating is done early in the month, and that a lot of people aren't nominating because they think that the one already put up there, 'well, it has loads of support, why should I bother?'. This, I think, is a terrible frame of mind, as the nomination (even without 'winning') is still immensely inspirational. A waiting period could give more stories a chance to be nominated, and I think it's worth a try. FruipyLoops File:Toph-DoBS-2.gif 14:04, November 14, 2013 (UTC) Despite never voting on these things, OR's proposal sounds good on a matter of principle. The 888th Avatar (talk) 22:26, November 14, 2013 (UTC) Okay, so assuming we pass this for the reasons given, how long will the period be - three days, like for User of the Month? Also, it should be clarified somehow (whether on the page or elsewhere) that this effects the nominations themselves. In the past for FFS/FFA, nominations have counted as votes and users have been used to nominating and voting at the same time. I assume this wouldn't be the case anymore if voting is closed for the first three days of the month, and that the said nominating user will have to return to the page after the initial period is over to cast their vote in the voting stage. -- 23:49, November 14, 2013 (UTC) It could run as UoTM voting does, with a three day waiting period for votes including the one from the nominator. 00:39, November 15, 2013 (UTC) Although some have used their nomination as a vote, the majority votes again with "per nomination" reasoning. But even so, it is no big to clarify somewhere on the page that one needs to vote again in the event that a second proposal is added. 09:21, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)