FFR Hall of Fame 2023 - Voting Thread

[xXOpkillerXx]

If only for the sake of avoiding any conflict of interest, I'd suggest any changes are made after the event. There will also be 2 result sets to take into consideration once this one is done so it'll be even better to discuss the changes with the community (as opposed to analysing things mid-voting-phase).

[Lights]

Originally Posted by T-Force

As an update, after thinking hard on it, I realize that with 13 nominees - and only 5 votes allowed per ballot - 50% is probably to harsh of a cut-off.
40% seems more accurate seeing as 5 of 13 is approx. 38.46% so you'd still need to make a good portion of ballots, considering the competition, and that's not even factoring ballots that can have under 5 votes.
It would also keep in line with last year as 40% was the unofficial cut-off as well.

(for transparency, 2 people are currently over 50%; 5 (including the aforementioned 2) are at 40% or higher, and the 3 non-50's are close to dipping below)

If a year came with only 10 or 11 nominees, 50% would be more feasible, imo, but as it is with 13, I think making it equal to the amount of votes allowed versus people that can be voted makes more sense.

If this is a bad idea, yell at me now before I make this change.

EDIT: That said, even if 6, or more, people break the 40% threshold, only the top 5 get in.

do it. fuggit

[T-Force]

Originally Posted by xXOpkillerXx

If only for the sake of avoiding any conflict of interest, I'd suggest any changes are made after the event. There will also be 2 result sets to take into consideration once this one is done so it'll be even better to discuss the changes with the community (as opposed to analysing things mid-voting-phase).

I appreciate the apprehension here, especially with your prior post talking about the bias that I may have. All I can give is my word that I'm not doing it for my own sake, and hope that my judgement can be trusted on this if the change does occur.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Originally Posted by T-Force

I appreciate the apprehension here, especially with your prior post talking about the bias that I may have. All I can give is my word that I'm not doing it for my own sake, and hope that my judgement can be trusted on this if the change does occur.

Erff I really tried to word things carefully. I'm sorry, honestly. Look I wouldn't have voted for you if I didn't believe one of the major point in your nomination text, which is that you're a very trustworthy person. I just wanted to keep things as fair as possible but I probably shouldve simply not commented on this. Fwiw I personally don't mind whatever decision is made on this idea.

[T-Force]

Oh, you're all good, dude.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Originally Posted by T-Force

Oh, you're all good, dude.

Woop~

[rayword45]

Originally Posted by Lights

do it. fuggit

yes

[Wayward Vagabond]

Wow i havent been active in years and haven't contributed anything in just as long and i wasn't nominated?! Blasphemy