Thread Suggestion: Best Answer Voting

Alright, so steelridge58 is suggesting that we should just give the win to whichever option the original poster actually voted for.

Meanwhile, servantes is proposing that if there's a tie, everyone who ended up with the highest number of votes gets to post their own question.

Right now, we're looking at a four-way tie with an equal number of votes for each answer.

I’m all for a one person, one vote rule here.
Sure, it makes things a bit more restrictive since you can only pick one option, but I think that’s how you force the most convincing choice to rise to the top by filtering out everything else.
It also stops people from just playing the numbers game; if you can only pick once, you actually have to sit down, think it through, and commit to the single best answer.
If we end up with a tie, the tiebreaker goes to whoever originally posted the poll.
If the author didn't vote, or if they voted for someone who didn't win, then the edge goes to the person who has hosted a poll more recently—basically, whoever was the last winner.
And if nobody has ever hosted a poll before? Well, I guess they'll just have to work it out among themselves.

Harold James9 said:The person who has posted the fewest questions up to that point should submit the next one. If there is a tie, the original poster should make the final call on the best answer.☕

I think questions should start with "What does ... mean."

🙂🙂🙂

I'm totally on board with that idea.

what about you, epifaner?

By the way, Drake and Walnut haven't actually stepped up to ask anything yet.

And epifaner already cast his vote for march28 out of those four options.

velveteagle8 said:I’m all for a one person, one vote rule here.
Sure, it makes things a bit more restrictive since you can only pick one option, but I think that’s how you force the most convincing choice to rise to the top by filtering out everything else.
It also stops people from just playing the numbers game; if you can only pick once, you actually have to sit down, think it through, and commit to the single best answer.
If we end up with a tie, the tiebreaker goes to whoever originally posted the poll.
If the author didn't vote, or if they voted for someone who didn't win, then the edge goes to the person who has hosted a poll more recently—basically, whoever was the last winner.
And if nobody has ever hosted a poll before? Well, I guess they'll just have to work it out among themselves.

😵

Based on this logic, mart28 would have the advantage right now since you put your vote behind her answer.

As for moving to a single-vote system, I think we really ought to reach a consensus and make sure the majority of everyone else is on board first.

🙂

I’m still sitting here wondering where we actually stand on this—honestly, I thought we were going to have everything squared away by 8 p.m.

steelridge58 said:😵

Based on this logic, mart28 would have the advantage right now since you put your vote behind her answer.

As for moving to a single-vote system, I think we really ought to reach a consensus and make sure the majority of everyone else is on board first.

🙂

These rules are incredibly thin.
If it were up to me, I’d write an entire legal code just to handle this survey 😁
And honestly, it wouldn't be hard.
It really just comes down to three main points:
- the opinion of the person asking the question
- whether a candidate won previously
- a mutual agreement among the winners

Terry Martinez10 said:+1
I’d give the edge to someone who hasn't posted a question yet.

But what happens if we end up with three top candidates, where one has already asked a question but the other two have never once?
Lovely, I'll just say it: the only way to handle this properly is with some solid, official polling regulations.

velveteagle8 said:I’m all for a one person, one vote rule here.
Sure, it makes things a bit more restrictive since you can only pick one option, but I think that’s how you force the most convincing choice to rise to the top by filtering out everything else.
It also stops people from just playing the numbers game; if you can only pick once, you actually have to sit down, think it through, and commit to the single best answer.
If we end up with a tie, the tiebreaker goes to whoever originally posted the poll.
If the author didn't vote, or if they voted for someone who didn't win, then the edge goes to the person who has hosted a poll more recently—basically, whoever was the last winner.
And if nobody has ever hosted a poll before? Well, I guess they'll just have to work it out among themselves.

That "is" really threw me for a loop, though I'm pretty sure they meant to say "isn't"

😉

steelridge58 said:That "is" really threw me for a loop, though I'm pretty sure they meant to say "isn't"

😉

No, it should be "is."
It refers to whoever was the previous winner of an earlier poll.
So, if we had two candidates tied with the same number of votes, and the person who wrote the poll didn't vote for either, the winner would be whoever won the last poll.

It’s pretty obvious that when you've got one person who already won and asked the question going up against someone new, the newcomer definitely has the edge here.

steelridge58 said:Right now, we’re sitting at a four-way tie

😉))

By the way, is there any way we could actually pick multiple options here, like voting for all the answers we actually like instead of being forced to just settle on one single choice?
Or, I don't know, maybe if there had to be some kind of limit, we could at least pick three?

Come on, everyone, please weigh in so we can figure out our next move, because honestly, Mark Torres14, it really bums me out that you're losing interest in participating in these Q&As just because the voting system is so frustrating.

So, does that mean each of the current four people should just go ahead and submit a brand new question of their own?

Yahoo! We'd end up with four new threads plus four more to comment on, and the whole forum server would probably just crash under the weight of it all.

😁

Since there’s zero scientific criteria or actual methodology for grading answers—which usually just boil down to a single sentence or a quote anyway—I don't see why we can't have multiple questions within one cycle.

velveteagle8 said:But what happens if we end up with three top candidates, where one has already asked a question but the other two have never once?
Lovely, I'll just say it: the only way to handle this properly is with some solid, official polling regulations.

In that case, why don't those two who haven't asked anything just hash it out and decide amongst themselves who gets the turn?
I mean, I don't have a problem with people making deals, but isn't it just objectively better when you have a diverse range of voices actually putting questions on the table?

Terry Martinez10 said:In that case, why don't those two who haven't asked anything just hash it out and decide amongst themselves who gets the turn?
I mean, I don't have a problem with people making deals, but isn't it just objectively better when you have a diverse range of voices actually putting questions on the table?

Then the winner wouldn't even have to be the one to pose the next question; we could just rotate the questioners in a set order.
The voting would basically become an exhibition, just a way for everyone to weigh in on which of the options they find most appealing.

To avoid overcomplicating an already tricky situation,🙂 I'll lay out my final suggestion here.
Regarding the voting process, we should vote for just one single answer.
As for how we pick a winner if there happens to be a tie:
- the author gets the deciding vote
- we use the criterion of whether the question has been asked before
- we simply reach a consensus

velveteagle8 said:No, it should be "is."
It refers to whoever was the previous winner of an earlier poll.
So, if we had two candidates tied with the same number of votes, and the person who wrote the poll didn't vote for either, the winner would be whoever won the last poll.

But shouldn't the advantage actually go to the person who hasn't won before?
(unless I'm just totally missing something here)
😁

Quincy:

It goes without saying that if you're comparing someone who has already been a winner and the poll creator against someone who hasn't, the second person would definitely have the edge.

😕

Yeah, fair enough, but I didn't quite catch that from what you said earlier.

velveteagle8 said:To avoid overcomplicating an already tricky situation,🙂 I'll lay out my final suggestion here.
Regarding the voting process, we should vote for just one single answer.
As for how we pick a winner if there happens to be a tie:
- the author gets the deciding vote
- we use the criterion of whether the question has been asked before
- we simply reach a consensus

Personally, I think this order works fine.

When it comes down to actually limiting everyone to just one vote, I think we need to settle that through a majority consensus.

Terry Martinez10 said:In that case, why don't those two who haven't asked anything just hash it out and decide amongst themselves who gets the turn?
I mean, I don't have a problem with people making deals, but isn't it just objectively better when you have a diverse range of voices actually putting questions on the table?

🙂)

Gregory and Walnut; they really ought to sit down and work that out together.

steelridge58 said:But shouldn't the advantage actually go to the person who hasn't won before?
(unless I'm just totally missing something here)
😁

Quincy:

It goes without saying that if you're comparing someone who has already been a winner and the poll creator against someone who hasn't, the second person would definitely have the edge.

😕

Yeah, fair enough, but I didn't quite catch that from what you said earlier.

Misa understood me, maybe I just explained it clumsily.
So, I was thinking about a scenario where both candidates have already won before (which seems more common). In that case, the edge would go to whoever won further back in the past.
For example, if Candidate 1 last won Poll #8, and Candidate 2 won Poll #10—Candidate 1 gets the advantage because their win is older. More time has passed since their last victory, so it feels fair to give them the upper hand.

velveteagle8 said:Misa understood me, maybe I just explained it clumsily.
So, I was thinking about a scenario where both candidates have already won before (which seems more common). In that case, the edge would go to whoever won further back in the past.
For example, if Candidate 1 last won Poll #8, and Candidate 2 won Poll #10—Candidate 1 gets the advantage because their win is older. More time has passed since their last victory, so it feels fair to give them the upper hand.

Ah, I see, I see... I definitely didn't take it that way based on how you worded everything earlier.

🙂

I sent some messages over to casualtiger2 and Harold Doyle3 asking them to jump in here so we can finally get everything squared away.

steelridge58 said:🙂)

Gregory and Walnut; they really ought to sit down and work that out together.

Right, or whoever else happens to turn up in the next round