CW Awards for 28th April - 4th May

[Richard]

Congrats to the winners...I have only one question...how are the winners selected? By vote? Or by your choice?...I mean is there a standard procedure of selection? If there's none, then I suggest there should be one....Just a question and a suggestion...Thanks...

No, there can't be. There's nothing official about anything, though with the Sobers I can obviously look at forum data to help make my mind up. Pretty much everything else is personal opinion, though obviously sometimes it's obvious.

I do try and encourage posters to nominate, but sadly it still doesn't happen very often. If they did, we'd probably have a bit more "consensus" and a bit less "one-man selection". Not much, though, because as I say - mostly, a good post to one person will be a good post to another.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you kindly put the names of all the possible awards with their meanings at one place so that it becomes easy for members to nominate...

I have thought about that before TBH, but the template as it currently is is the way things have always been. I think it'd be a bit difficult to change, and would result in a needlessly long post.

 

[weldone]

No, there can't be. There's nothing official about anything, though with the Sobers I can obviously look at forum data to help make my mind up. Pretty much everything else is personal opinion, though obviously sometimes it's obvious.

I do try and encourage posters to nominate, but sadly it still doesn't happen very often. If they did, we'd probably have a bit more "consensus" and a bit less "one-man selection". Not much, though, because as I say - mostly, a good post to one person will be a good post to another.

I suggest the following procedure-

1. If votes do not come in for a certain category, then one-man selection is the only alternative left.
2. If votes do come in for a category, then count those votes and select the top 2 nominations based on vote counts...Then choose one between the two based on one-man selection again.

Tell me if you like it...

 

[Richard]

Trouble is, most weeks (we've offered the nominations for perhaps 20 weeks of Awards now) you get zero nominations for any Award.

If people start to nominate more often, then we can think about having some sort of "democratic" system but I'm not really sure TBH - it makes things look more "official" than I think anyone wants it to.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The nominations were more of method of making sure that the awards committee saw the relevant post, weren't they?

 

[weldone]

What is the minimum requirement to be a judge?

 

[Richard]

The nominations were more of method of making sure that the awards committee saw the relevant post, weren't they?

Yep, pretty much. Though fair to say if (it's never happened, but hypothetically speaking) I thought I was going to give the Boycs to someone but 6 people emailed in and suggested (at least, suggested seriously) someone else, I'd probably change my mind.

And I did once - just once - give someone (Matt of '79) a Bradman because about 3 people posted the previous week saying "jeys, he should win a Bradman sometime".

 

[Richard]

What is the minimum requirement to be a judge?

To read the forum - lots - and be able to be reliable in sending in your pick(s) each week.

Also, without putting too fine a point on it, to be a poster that most or all take seriously. Fortunately, this numbers the vast majority of long-term members.

TBH, I don't feel entirely happy discussing this, as it makes things feel a little too "official".

 

[Son Of Coco]

Trouble is, most weeks (we've offered the nominations for perhaps 20 weeks of Awards now) you get zero nominations for any Award.

If people start to nominate more often, then we can think about having some sort of "democratic" system but I'm not really sure TBH - it makes things look more "official" than I think anyone wants it to.

Yeah, I had no nominations for this week...and I won't be sitting down to read every post in CC over the next week. I'll be lucky to see 5%. No nominations means a very limited field. (Not counting the 8 posts I made out of 40 last week that were absolutely mind-bogglingly brilliant of course ).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Dire. Completely and utterly ridiculous.

I agree. The Skull was there for the taking...open your eyes judges!

 

[a massive zebra]

Thanks for my award.