![]() |
2007-11-29
, 18:48
|
Posts: 67 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Auckland, New Zealand
|
#142
|
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 13:48
|
|
Posts: 832 |
Thanked: 75 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
@ Phoenix, AZ
|
#143
|
|
2007-11-30
, 16:25
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#144
|
Winners - I turned on my ability to receive messages over YouTube. Please send me your preference of "second prize" (ranked 1-4)
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 17:28
|
Posts: 76 |
Thanked: 35 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Seattle
|
#145
|
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 20:26
|
Posts: 67 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Auckland, New Zealand
|
#146
|
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 20:43
|
|
Posts: 1,361 |
Thanked: 115 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
#147
|
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 20:53
|
|
Posts: 41 |
Thanked: 2 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#148
|
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 20:56
|
Posts: 130 |
Thanked: 5 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Maine & Florida - USA
|
#149
|
![]() |
2007-11-30
, 21:10
|
Posts: 67 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Auckland, New Zealand
|
#150
|
I think it's _generally_ safe to assume that entrants would vote for themselves regardless of whether or not they were registered here beforehand and regardless of whether or not they got to the finals [I understand some _may_ be altruistic enough not to.]
Ergo the easiest way to solve the problem of "I can't cast a vote for myself because I wasn't registered before X" is to simply not count votes from any entrants/finalists, or to add 1 to the tally for your own video [i.e. assume you voted for yourselves and not shoot yourselves in the foot]. Since entrants [not finalists] stand to gain nothing from voting at this stage, you may as well count them amongst the voters.
The results are the same so its moot.
I don't think its _that_ unfair to restrict votes to people registered before the contest was anounced; at least it's not as unfair as popularity voting. It would probably be best in the future to either (a) get judges to vote for the winner straight away - but that wouldn't get the ITT community involved; or (b) get votes from *active* ITT forum members, which is _kindof_ the way its being done now albeit crudely [but effectively.]
At the end of the day you want to fix the issue of popularity voting i.e. exclude dormant accounts from casting votes and perhaps one way to define this in future is to use the default forum descriptions for people under their names "junior members, member, senior member, administrators, etc".
As a first for Dan - I think it's a learning experience and I'm sure in the future when he's giving away N900s, N950s, N1Ks, etc he'll have a list of foolproof rules setup beforehand. He's done a spiffing job so far and I think he's acheived what he wanted from the competition, so kudos to him
Congrats to all of the finalists, good luck tomorrow! I'd be very interested to see who's won
Last edited by yabbas; 2007-11-29 at 10:52.