On nominating Eric

[karohemd]

Don't believe that I won't nominate someone else as well. Nominating him(and it's only a nomination, not a vote, I apologise for the typo) doesn't mean he'll get it.

There is no way I would vote for Eric, I never voted for him in any of the elections he was in but I think it's a laugh to nominate him.

This shows that a lot of nominations don't mean anything about whether the candidate actually deserves an award.
Take Mr Fuckwit (as a random name), who has a number of good chums in the society but hasn't done anything to warrant an award. All his friends are going to nominate him and if we're unlucky, he'll get it.

There aren't any rules who can nominate whom. However, where do you draw the line in a society where a lot of people are friends (and dire enemies)?

Comments

[toxicpixie.livejournal.com]

Isnt it worrying that you have to post this kind of disclaimer?

I think I dislike the Cam quite a lot y'know, even if some of the games and players are good.

Nathan, The Toxic Pixie

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Isnt it worrying that you have to post this kind of disclaimer?

Yes, it worries me. There are a lot of people out there who take this whole society and anything related to it far too seriously.

I'm really only in the Cam for the sociable thing now, true.

[toxicpixie.livejournal.com]

*nod*

Agreed 100%

Nathan, The Toxic Pixie

[borusa.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between nominating him once, and nominating him many times, so many times that you outnumber the legitimate nominations (which it was getting close to.)

Once, funny
Twice, half as funny...
Thrice, embarrassing.

[toxicpixie.livejournal.com]

When things are embarresing, its probably pointing that there needs to be a change of some sort, or that people find the current situation a joke.

And I do take on board the point that its an attempt at a 'genuinely nice thing' for the membership, but if he's outnumbered (or is close to outnumbering) the other candidates on his own then surely something is up?

Nathan, The Toxic Pixie

[borusa.livejournal.com]

yes, what's up is that the UK members have shown themselves to be bandwaggonning idiots.

They nominated him 13 times.

[toxicpixie.livejournal.com]

Hmm, dunno about that tbh.

Certainly not my take on it, YMMV.

Nathan, The Toxic Pixie

[borusa.livejournal.com]

The way it's supposed to work is that people nominate candidates. The panel then goes through, looks at the nominations, then presumably does a cull based on whether the reasons sound good to produce a shortlist. They then contact various people (I'm expecting to be contacted) and get further, hopefully less biased, testimony. Having done all that, they probably then sit around a table, discuss all the candidates, look at the testimony, then decide.

It's not great, because no panel decided thing is, but I think the people involved will endeavour to do their best, and in the end it becomes a nice thing to be either nominated or to win.

There's a line between making a joke, and wrecking something that's genuinely nice. And I felt that line was at the very best, under threat.

Robert

[faerierhona.livejournal.com]

but by voting for someone you think is unsuitable you're only making it worse

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Anyone actually voting for him would be very stupid indeed and would not have gotten the message.