FFR Hall of Fame 2023 - Voting Thread

[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.

[xXOpkillerXx]

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 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.

My first thoughts reading this is that it's a bit of a weird timing/situation. You're a nominee, and you seem to know the current state of the votes. This decision seems like it could be perceived as bias in your own favor.

That being said, I voted for you so I'd hope you win it, and the above concern is as objective as possible.

[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

[rayword45]

Originally Posted by Lights

do it. fuggit

yes