It's almost time for the year end awards season. Of course, I'll be handing out my Blog Awards, and various feds will be voting on their awards too. There will definitely be interfed hubs handing out their awards too, but there's one in particular that's been doing this for the last two years. ENN, run by Brian Jenkins, might seem like it's not an active hub right now, but their ENNie awards are pretty prestigious. They're voted on by some of the best minds in all of eW, albeit minds that are confined to a certain circle.
This year, I'd like to see more people from all over take part in the nomination and voting processes. I know a lot of people have their own awards, but a centralized awards ceremony will give a lot more credibility to achievements throughout the year. The more voices heard, the stronger the reaction.
The cool thing about the ENNies is that it's written up like an awards show. The writeups themselves can have their memorable moments, most notably, Professor Tremendous accepting Troy Windham's Heel of the Year Award on his behalf.
We're in the nomination process right now. If you'd like to participate, go here. If you're not a member of ENN right now, you'll have to register, but that'll only take a second.
So participate and help give eW a more prestigious year end awards ceremony.
Showing posts with label democratic process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democratic process. Show all posts
Monday, December 18, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
A1E: The Voting Question
No matter how much we want to deny it, we're all selfish sometimes in this hobby. Even the most hardcore of angle-fedders will probably want to write the biggest match and get the most props for their writing sometimes. Not all the time, but sometimes.
And so it's natural that we always want to win our matches. Even if we don't say it, deep down inside, winning matches in RP feds, where the competitive spirit is still alive, is always going to matter a lot. And when you can have a say in whether you win or lose, it raises the pot a little.
Or at least it should.
That's why A1E has always been a little more sensitive to wins and losses than most other RP feds. We've always had the vote system, and in some way, wins and losses were more than wins and losses; they were validation from your peers.
Yet, as of right now, there has been some grumbling from the Booking Committee about removing the vote system because only BC guys have been voting. It makes sense, because if you want to keep a system in place and people aren't adhering to it, despite the fact that it's a popular system, you threaten them with the system's removal to a system that, if all else remains equal, is a much, much worse system. Right at that, a few folks (including myself) came out in defense of it, at least as opposed to the alternative.
Yet, if the voting system was gotten rid of and replaced with a single-booker system, I would be all for it. Why?
Because it's too problematic.
One, it's easily manipulated. Stanton proved that with his Cyber Title machinations. Sure, no one was proven to do that again or before, but the temptation is there, and should there be a boom in wrestling and a spike in handlers for A1E, you know someone is going to try to rig it so their character wins the Cyber Title or even more.
Two, relying on the entire body of a fed for a voting quorum isn't sensible, especially since most of us in A1E are a little older now and have a lot more on our plates. Maybe if the ideas Brunk and Dan West had to switch the voting time to a more friendly time is implemented, we'll see a spike. But still, people, as a rule, are generally unreliable.
Three, ever hear of the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth?" To me, that exactly encapsulates A1E finish booking to a tee. Basically, you're asking about 12-15 different people to impart their vision on a fed. Usually, those 12-15 people have 12-15 directions they want to take things, and plans get muddled. It's almost impossible to do any good longterm booking, because everyone has their own ideas.
Basically, I wouldn't cry if the tyranny of the majority was thrown to the wayside, but only if a better system was put in place. That better system is to have a single booker system where that booker wasn't handling in the fed with an active competitor. There's too much of a conflict of an interest involved, no matter how impartial that person is.
Unless the party involved is jobbing their character all the time, there is no way that everyone is going to trust them to be objective in judging their own matches. If they had an outside person judging their matches, it could work. It works in AWC, where Pierre Hyde runs Tim Shipley with great success and no backlash. And it could work in A1E should Roger want to continue running his characters but not give up head booking duties. (And let's be honest here... to ask Roger to choose between giving up the reigns in A1E or taking out any of his characters would be unreasonable at this point) Let Jarret or Phil judge his matches (as long as they aren't involved either). But get to one person setting the tone with everyone else sort of falling in line. To me, that's the best recipe for success.
And it would help bring some new blood into A1E. I know I've talked to a few people who are staying away from A1E because of the vote system. I know we have a good amount of handlers now, but we could always use more.
What would be the worst scenario though? Going to a full BC vote system. Just the pall it casts over the fed that a group of handlers in the fed control everyone... it keeps people away and it causes mistrust within the fed. Even if the BC is not deciding matches in a cliquish manner (and I truly believe they wouldn't), the percepption would be there. I know when the old system of BC override was in place, most of the people I talked to that weren't on the BC didn't like it and thought it was being misused at most and a bit screwy at least.
Now, when you ask someone who is on the BC, they'll say that things weren't screwy and they were doing a good job. They'll defend it to the death. But what do you expect them to do? Say they weren't doing a good job? I don't blame them one bit for defending their tenure overall, although I do think the reversion to the pure vote system was a small admission that the BC override system wasn't working.
But still, no matter what happens in any walk of life, the true gauge of how somethign works is never through how those who implement the system see it, it's always through the eyes of whom it effects that's correct. And if those who aren't on the BC think that there's a giant conflict of interest with five guys who handle nine characters in the fed are the ones deciding the matches for everyone, then it probably is a giant conflict of interest and shouldn't be implemented. It wouldn't matter if in reality the BC was being ultimately fair. All it takes is one person to say that them losing to a BC character is questionable for there to be a firestorm.
Whether it's a firestorm or not, it's generally not good to have a system with such an inherent fatal flaw in it, and it's generally not good to give your handlers something to complain about. It's just bad practice.
Which is why if the only choice is between having a BC only vote and a totally open vote, I'd go totally open vote, even if the only folks who are voting are the BC guys. Why be for it if they're essentially the same in that situation?
Well, when a screwy result happens, the BC guys don't need to take all the flak if there's an open vote system and no one else votes. It's not their fault that the guy who's perceived as an "unjust" winner won... no one else voted, it's on them. Whereas, if the other folks couldn't vote, then there's nothing they could do about it, and they have plenty of reason to bitch.
So that's my two cents on the subject. But if you wanted a pittance more, then here it is.
If you really want to give people incentive to vote, let them vote for themselves again. That way, they can vote to make up a vote. But in order to discourage irresponsible voting, make it so that you can only vote for yourself IF you give reasons for all your other votes. THat way, they have to read the other matches if they want to get a vote for themselves.
And so it's natural that we always want to win our matches. Even if we don't say it, deep down inside, winning matches in RP feds, where the competitive spirit is still alive, is always going to matter a lot. And when you can have a say in whether you win or lose, it raises the pot a little.
Or at least it should.
That's why A1E has always been a little more sensitive to wins and losses than most other RP feds. We've always had the vote system, and in some way, wins and losses were more than wins and losses; they were validation from your peers.
Yet, as of right now, there has been some grumbling from the Booking Committee about removing the vote system because only BC guys have been voting. It makes sense, because if you want to keep a system in place and people aren't adhering to it, despite the fact that it's a popular system, you threaten them with the system's removal to a system that, if all else remains equal, is a much, much worse system. Right at that, a few folks (including myself) came out in defense of it, at least as opposed to the alternative.
Yet, if the voting system was gotten rid of and replaced with a single-booker system, I would be all for it. Why?
Because it's too problematic.
One, it's easily manipulated. Stanton proved that with his Cyber Title machinations. Sure, no one was proven to do that again or before, but the temptation is there, and should there be a boom in wrestling and a spike in handlers for A1E, you know someone is going to try to rig it so their character wins the Cyber Title or even more.
Two, relying on the entire body of a fed for a voting quorum isn't sensible, especially since most of us in A1E are a little older now and have a lot more on our plates. Maybe if the ideas Brunk and Dan West had to switch the voting time to a more friendly time is implemented, we'll see a spike. But still, people, as a rule, are generally unreliable.
Three, ever hear of the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth?" To me, that exactly encapsulates A1E finish booking to a tee. Basically, you're asking about 12-15 different people to impart their vision on a fed. Usually, those 12-15 people have 12-15 directions they want to take things, and plans get muddled. It's almost impossible to do any good longterm booking, because everyone has their own ideas.
Basically, I wouldn't cry if the tyranny of the majority was thrown to the wayside, but only if a better system was put in place. That better system is to have a single booker system where that booker wasn't handling in the fed with an active competitor. There's too much of a conflict of an interest involved, no matter how impartial that person is.
Unless the party involved is jobbing their character all the time, there is no way that everyone is going to trust them to be objective in judging their own matches. If they had an outside person judging their matches, it could work. It works in AWC, where Pierre Hyde runs Tim Shipley with great success and no backlash. And it could work in A1E should Roger want to continue running his characters but not give up head booking duties. (And let's be honest here... to ask Roger to choose between giving up the reigns in A1E or taking out any of his characters would be unreasonable at this point) Let Jarret or Phil judge his matches (as long as they aren't involved either). But get to one person setting the tone with everyone else sort of falling in line. To me, that's the best recipe for success.
And it would help bring some new blood into A1E. I know I've talked to a few people who are staying away from A1E because of the vote system. I know we have a good amount of handlers now, but we could always use more.
What would be the worst scenario though? Going to a full BC vote system. Just the pall it casts over the fed that a group of handlers in the fed control everyone... it keeps people away and it causes mistrust within the fed. Even if the BC is not deciding matches in a cliquish manner (and I truly believe they wouldn't), the percepption would be there. I know when the old system of BC override was in place, most of the people I talked to that weren't on the BC didn't like it and thought it was being misused at most and a bit screwy at least.
Now, when you ask someone who is on the BC, they'll say that things weren't screwy and they were doing a good job. They'll defend it to the death. But what do you expect them to do? Say they weren't doing a good job? I don't blame them one bit for defending their tenure overall, although I do think the reversion to the pure vote system was a small admission that the BC override system wasn't working.
But still, no matter what happens in any walk of life, the true gauge of how somethign works is never through how those who implement the system see it, it's always through the eyes of whom it effects that's correct. And if those who aren't on the BC think that there's a giant conflict of interest with five guys who handle nine characters in the fed are the ones deciding the matches for everyone, then it probably is a giant conflict of interest and shouldn't be implemented. It wouldn't matter if in reality the BC was being ultimately fair. All it takes is one person to say that them losing to a BC character is questionable for there to be a firestorm.
Whether it's a firestorm or not, it's generally not good to have a system with such an inherent fatal flaw in it, and it's generally not good to give your handlers something to complain about. It's just bad practice.
Which is why if the only choice is between having a BC only vote and a totally open vote, I'd go totally open vote, even if the only folks who are voting are the BC guys. Why be for it if they're essentially the same in that situation?
Well, when a screwy result happens, the BC guys don't need to take all the flak if there's an open vote system and no one else votes. It's not their fault that the guy who's perceived as an "unjust" winner won... no one else voted, it's on them. Whereas, if the other folks couldn't vote, then there's nothing they could do about it, and they have plenty of reason to bitch.
So that's my two cents on the subject. But if you wanted a pittance more, then here it is.
If you really want to give people incentive to vote, let them vote for themselves again. That way, they can vote to make up a vote. But in order to discourage irresponsible voting, make it so that you can only vote for yourself IF you give reasons for all your other votes. THat way, they have to read the other matches if they want to get a vote for themselves.
Friday, August 12, 2005
A1E: What's the dill?
First note, it seems that this blog has inspired at least two other folks from EWN to start ones of their own. More power to them, I says. But I'm also feeling a good feeling of flattery, seeing that imitation is its sincerest form and all.
Anyway, to the point of the post...
When I first got into A1E back in Y2K, I thought the vote system was the only way to go when it came to fantasy wrestling. Seeing that A1E and MBE both used it, and they were the only feds I was used to, I thought it was what worked best.
Then I joined the CWA (I think that's what it was called), Josh Weiner's fed over at FW, and I saw that a booked fed did work too. That was reinforced by Dave Brunk's Empire Pro, Sean Edmunds' New ERA, and all the other feds I've since joined.
There was also a growing discontent with the vote system, which started with Mike Stanton's vote-rigging to get him the Cyber Championship. Then there was Duchess beating Dan Ryan, among other screwy results. There was a growing voice within the A1E rank and file to change things. And I'd have to say, it was all justified. The vote system was keeping FW talent from jumping and mixing up the A1 talent pool. It cause grumbling to me in IM from certain folks. It was a mess.
Even I started to become disillusioned with the pure-vote system. I honestly thougth that there could have been bloc voting still happening, and I also thought that there wasn't a sufficient quorum for voting in the A1E roster. Results were being skewed.
So they decided on a compromise, a new system. They'd still count the public vote, but in case of a really out-of-whack result from the voters, the BC would have power of overturn.
At least that's how it was explained.
As the cards under this new system progressed, we were getting some results that were whackier than normal. The most egregious of these was Prisoner 187 going over Big Dog in the tournament. THe BC overturned that because they thought 187 was better than usual, but they never said if he was better than Big Dog that week or not. I'm guessing they let the results do the talking there.
But it turned out that the new system is really a BC vote thing, where each member's vote is weighted as one, while the public vote on the whole is weighted as two votes. Nevermind if you squashed in the public vote... that would be worth two votes in the new system, the same as if you won only by a single vote.
Now, I don't know if they're doing this in every match or not, but the fact remains that if it remains a possibility in any match, then it renders singular public voting worthless. Seriously, why should I vote if my vote may not have any bearing on the match? Out of seven counting votes, my vote would only make up *part* of the 2/7 that is counted from the public, and that's only if the guy I voted for won the public vote.
It's very troubling to say the least.
So, while it's admirable that the A1E Booking Committee tried to overhaul the system, it didn't work. It needs another overhaul. It needs as few people deciding the matches as possible. Honestly, I think the task of deciding matches should go on one person alone, three people at most. If anything, Roger (the noted head of the A1E BC) should be the only one deciding matches, and if that means that he can't run Housefly, Haven and whoever else he runs in the fed, then in the words of Housefly, "So be it." If he does want to run the characters, then they should go to the NFW system. Three votes, and in the case of matches by oen of the voters, do a Gregg Gethard Rule... have someone else vote in the guy's place. It's not that hard.
And it would certainly make things a lot simpler for all parties involved.
Besides, the vote system is clunky anyway. It puts the vote in hands of irresponsible people for the most part. I mean, I know that I don't read all the matches every week, so I don't vote every week. And there are people who don't read matches who do vote.
So why make the entire fed do a job that's suited for one to three people?
Anyway, to the point of the post...
When I first got into A1E back in Y2K, I thought the vote system was the only way to go when it came to fantasy wrestling. Seeing that A1E and MBE both used it, and they were the only feds I was used to, I thought it was what worked best.
Then I joined the CWA (I think that's what it was called), Josh Weiner's fed over at FW, and I saw that a booked fed did work too. That was reinforced by Dave Brunk's Empire Pro, Sean Edmunds' New ERA, and all the other feds I've since joined.
There was also a growing discontent with the vote system, which started with Mike Stanton's vote-rigging to get him the Cyber Championship. Then there was Duchess beating Dan Ryan, among other screwy results. There was a growing voice within the A1E rank and file to change things. And I'd have to say, it was all justified. The vote system was keeping FW talent from jumping and mixing up the A1 talent pool. It cause grumbling to me in IM from certain folks. It was a mess.
Even I started to become disillusioned with the pure-vote system. I honestly thougth that there could have been bloc voting still happening, and I also thought that there wasn't a sufficient quorum for voting in the A1E roster. Results were being skewed.
So they decided on a compromise, a new system. They'd still count the public vote, but in case of a really out-of-whack result from the voters, the BC would have power of overturn.
At least that's how it was explained.
As the cards under this new system progressed, we were getting some results that were whackier than normal. The most egregious of these was Prisoner 187 going over Big Dog in the tournament. THe BC overturned that because they thought 187 was better than usual, but they never said if he was better than Big Dog that week or not. I'm guessing they let the results do the talking there.
But it turned out that the new system is really a BC vote thing, where each member's vote is weighted as one, while the public vote on the whole is weighted as two votes. Nevermind if you squashed in the public vote... that would be worth two votes in the new system, the same as if you won only by a single vote.
Now, I don't know if they're doing this in every match or not, but the fact remains that if it remains a possibility in any match, then it renders singular public voting worthless. Seriously, why should I vote if my vote may not have any bearing on the match? Out of seven counting votes, my vote would only make up *part* of the 2/7 that is counted from the public, and that's only if the guy I voted for won the public vote.
It's very troubling to say the least.
So, while it's admirable that the A1E Booking Committee tried to overhaul the system, it didn't work. It needs another overhaul. It needs as few people deciding the matches as possible. Honestly, I think the task of deciding matches should go on one person alone, three people at most. If anything, Roger (the noted head of the A1E BC) should be the only one deciding matches, and if that means that he can't run Housefly, Haven and whoever else he runs in the fed, then in the words of Housefly, "So be it." If he does want to run the characters, then they should go to the NFW system. Three votes, and in the case of matches by oen of the voters, do a Gregg Gethard Rule... have someone else vote in the guy's place. It's not that hard.
And it would certainly make things a lot simpler for all parties involved.
Besides, the vote system is clunky anyway. It puts the vote in hands of irresponsible people for the most part. I mean, I know that I don't read all the matches every week, so I don't vote every week. And there are people who don't read matches who do vote.
So why make the entire fed do a job that's suited for one to three people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)