At 1/5/05 09:34 AM, RedCircle wrote:
How far do you bend the rules?
I made rules, so that shit wouldn't be thrown together every month without some predictability. I have one person added to the list every month because I don't want the list to get bloated. I take notice, just as you do, the frequency of people's visits, and how they diminish AS SOON as they are "in the club." When it's not hard to be a part of the club, it kills the exclusitivity, and nobody is excited anymore.
It doesn't matter, though, whether only one person or two people (if a tie happens) get added to a list per month, though... the list will grow and grow and yes, eventually get "bloated." It'll just happen a BIT slower if ties aren't allowed to elevate both people into the list.
And this, of course, is why you've allowed for the possibility of people being voted OFF the list as well as voted on it. So... you still can't explain to my satisfaction why a tie between two perfectly qualified-and-welcome users... can't just mean that the two people who got the most removal votes come off in exchange (instead of just one), or something.
Just like the EGRL and NGTL. You feel much better when you get on the EGRL. Why? Because you feel like you earned it.
And why does two people earning something cheapen it? Very few people enter the EGRL by themselves each week. Most weeks Dogma updates the list, half a dozen or more people have entered the EGRL.
So, back to my original point. Why not just add them (IK and EK)both? Well, lets say that I bend the rule, and make it so that when people tie (at first place), they are all added. Then a few months down the line when 5 people tie at 7 votes each, or whatever, I'll have to put them all in too.
It's not about bending the rule, it's about CHANGING the rule. You could have changed the rule so that a maximum of two people at once could be added, reasoning that a tie between two people is VERY possible (it happened, after all), and if both people are deserving, it's not very fair to exclude one of them (better to exclude BOTH, IMO, actually)...
but that a tie between 3 people is very unlikely... and if that actually happened, since you have a small pool of voters, the actual votes for each person would be lower than the votes for a tie between two people at the top would be.... and therefore there's less of a "mandate" for each person to be added.. and thus, 2 is the max that may be added.
Or whatever. You get the point. This stuff about bending vs. breaking is just semantics. The rules in this topic/list are YOURS, not some external, third-party, unreachable gov't or something. You are teh rulemaker. MAKE them as you see fit. You've changed the list since page 1, right? If you can change the list(s) and how they work, why can't you change the rules, too? And wait, you DID. You've changed the rules on how mods/members are eligible for various list inclusion.
It's gonna make the Regulars List HUGE and nobody will take pride in that, although they aren't a Member yet, they can still say that they are part of something.
No one was arguing for 5 people to be added to the list per month, man.
Well, that's partially the reason for the removal vote being optional. It is sometimes used, but hell, last month, only three people out of 14 used it.
This list WILL grow, but not as fast as some people might like it to, and all I can say to them is TOUGH.
At least it isn't as slow as the MemberList. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that the MemberList is slow, because it means that it's level of exclusivity is through the roof.
its. #;-}>
What's so great about exclusivity when it comes to fun things like this and that, though? Exclusivity just means exclusion, yanno. And there's nothing wrong with that if it's due to someone not doing something they could easily do to get INCLUDED (such as hit 10.00 VP if they really really really want to be part of the fairly-exclusive 10.00+ VP club)... but if it's something like the arbitrary rules behind a list that doesn't have hard concrete guidelines... then that's a different matter.
Sorry, he'll have to wait until next month. *insert geefox smiley*
Well, what happened, eh? #;-}>
Man, are you on a complaining trip today! Well, you tried at least, and I think EK would be happy to see that. Let's put it this way, WE ALL KNOW that EK is awesome, so let's make it an official thing. Let's let him EARN it!
If the rule was bent, do you think he would have felt the same pride about being on the list then if he won it fair and square?
I'm sure that in the last Wi/Ht? Member election, if SK and I "tied" and we were both put in, him nor I would have felt the pride and accomplishment that I felt when I had my 15 minutes of fame.
All I was arguing a month ago or so... was that he DID earn it. How is tying the person who ended up getting added to a grouping not earning your way on? Like I kinda said before, if one person in a tie is considered to not have "earned" the solitary "new entrant" slot to the list, then... the other person in the tie didn't earn it either. If someone really has to BLOW someone else out of the water to be added to the list, then you might as well make it a "no tiebreakers allowed" deal and just say "sorry, no new members this month, both guys can try again next time."
As for your other example... If you and SK tied and were both put into the Wi/Ht?, I'd think we got two new great members to the group, and the more the merrier.
I don't know where people got the idea that we only add one at a time to Wi/Ht? That's the way Recon likes to do it, and that's the way Spancker did it most recently, but ONCE UPON A TIME (i.e. summer of 2003), we added pairs of people to Wi/Ht?... TWICE! Just check the member-dates on the memberlist. Four people were added within a month of each other, and each pair within 2 days of each other.
I've never been one for exclusivity just for exclusivity's sake, so bringing up the Wi/Ht? elections with me ain't gonna get you far. Maybe with other members, but not with me. IMO, the best way to run the Wi/Ht? election would be to allow people to vote for up to 2 or 3 people to enter the membership... and anyone who gets over a certain majority %age of the total membership's vote would be added, meaning there could be more than 1 new member at a time.
Just like there was... in the golden past.