At 3/2/06 07:42 PM, Back_Door_Baron wrote:
Hey James, I just have a small suggestion that may or may not have been answered in the past. Forgive me if it's been addressed and I'm just too lazy to look for the answer...
There are many people not in the top active 2000 who would like to vote. At the same time, I'm sure there are plenty of users in the top active 2000 who can vote but don't (like myself many months). Is there any way to revoke the voting ability for such a person for a month to allow some of those not in the top active 2000 the ability to vote?
For instance, if I don't vote this month, why should I get the opportunity to vote next month? Clearly I don't appreciate this privelege when so many others would love to have it, so why should I always be given it when it could go to someone who wants it?
It would be nice to see what percentage of the top 2000 active users vote. If it's a fair amount, then my suggestion is moot. But if the number is small, say under 50%, then maybe we should consider this "one month voting ban" as incentive to vote, or at least a way to give other people the chance to give their input?
Hrm. Now that will be a REAL mind fuck for the people trying to get their heads around whether or not they're going to be able to vote. That said, I really do like that idea. My only quandry being with how it might be set up.
I suppose the fairest way would (if that sort of system were to be put in place) be if you missed a month, you wouldn't get to vote the next month. If you missed two months, you wouldn't get to vote for the next two months. Etc.
There are, however, a few issues I have with doing things that way...
The first of which, I've already noted (confusion amongst the ranks is already widespread).
Secondly, the monthly voting isn't intended to be a pressure issue - those who're high in the rankings and continue to get there are doing so off their own backs and precluding them from making future votes because they missed the boat one month makes me wonder whether people will vote just for the hell of it. They might feel rushed as a consequence of potentially losing their ability to post the following month, if they don't vote in time. 7 days (or 6, if you want to argue semantics) should be enough for time for those who want and are able to vote, to vote.
I'm sure there are other issues I could think of as well, but I'll leave it at that for now, since I'm tired.
The tough thing about all of this is that we already do get a great return on people who're eligible to vote, voting each month. There are other options to consider, when it comes to deciding on who votes and how that message is delivered to them, too. Couple of which I can think of are:
1. Increase the number of people being able to participate in the scheme and
2. Draw more awareness to the scheme for those who're eligible to vote (other than through front page posts, etc).
Definitely food for thought. Thanks for your suggestions. :)