A good old discussion around PnQ

Okay I feel I would like to start a thread and also say a few things, and get a discussion started around my points and opinions. Some I’m sure you may not agree with, some you may. What I will say is that I am not some one who “ agree to disagree” I find this really irritating, as it does not solve anything. I respect peoples opinions whether I agree or not.

Firstly, what I would like to say is about the competition, again these are purely observation, reading threads and my perspective.

Maybe all poems deemed by the judges that they award points to all score 10. This way all the poems are primarily on the all the same level, of course then the poet with the ‘most 10’s’ is the winner. The only way there is a ‘landslide victory’ is if all judges voted the same poem. I am not a betting man these days, but what odds would you give for that to happen?
So I feel that the judging doesn’t change, the only difference is that each poet receives 10 points. Take last week. Hiraeth would have been awarded 60 points as two judges awarded their ‘maximum’ Jane could of also scored 60 and MaryAnne 30 (hypothetically speaking). What I am saying is that 150 points are up. If all judges gave maximum to a poet, blooming well done I say. I hope you understand where I am coming from.
The chances of an outright winner is high as before, with two runner-ups or ties what does that matter. The results wouldn’t have altered that much from last week, however HMs might be far fewer, but a competition is about a winner and the runner-ups. There would no doubt still be HMs. As I said before there are always 5 different judges with all different feelings/emotions/styled poetry etc they read, as discussed in the most recent thread. This will not change, what will change is that every poem selected by a judge will be allocated 10/20/30. If a poem stands out, this I am sure will be reflected, and no poet can say they were worth more or less. If a judge wants to award a poet maximum 30, then so be it. That is their maximum for a reason. And if there is a tie with 5 poets all recieving 30 points again so be it (very doubtful, the way the judging has been going) any HMs will still be awarded whether 20/10 points, the scoring system is then seen as fair with equalled 10 points all poems are on a par. If a judge cant decide between the 3 they read, the poets will all receive 10 points, again I'm sure the chances of 15 poems each receiving 10 points each is highly unlikely, but if that's the case so be it.
I'm not great at maths and very uneducated, so please find a way this can not happen :)

I will return to this thread with more items, but maybe this may start a conversation to look at things a little differently (hopefully anyway) and attempt a more fairer way

Hey Michael :)

I love it when any member wants to generate discussion about changes that can be made to better the site, and maybe this is something to look into when/if Janis returns. Unfortunately, at the risk of sounding like a broken record (don't shoot the messenger lol, pretty please), we can't change the numerical value of judges' votes. That requires access to coding that we do not have and only Janis, the site admin, can make this type of change. He's disappeared (again) for several years.

Make a open voting system.

Rules...

1. Voter should have atleast a golden c or platinum f to be eligible and to limit the audience.

2. Like I nominated three poems and hireath nominated three poems and Jane nominated three poems. So while voting the three of can't give points to any poems nominated by us. Like, for this week, I nominated three poems...

A. Butterflies
B. Healing kiss
C. Tale of darkened wine.

So I can't give my vote or points to these three poems as I have nominated them.
But hireath can or silvershoes or any other candidate with voting status I mentioned above.

3. People can't give vote to their own poem on the nomination list nominated by others. Like, I nominated three poems and the same week two of my poems are nominated too. So I can't give my votes to these 5 poems.

4. Suppose I vote and give my first 10 points to Ben's poem, then I can't give my 7 or my 4 points to one of Ben's another poem in the nomination list. I will have to give my 7 to Andrea's poem and 4 to some other poet's poem.

5. Rest of the things will be same as usual. Like nomination open window and close window. Once nomination closes, a moderater will open a new thread for just 24 hours mentioning open voting(such an such date) with rules so that people can read and vote. Eligible candidates will give their three votes to three poems they think deem worthy of winning on basis of points from 10,7,and 4.

Suppose 10 people vote, so after 24 hours when the thread will be lock again to prevent further voting. we will calculate which three poems gets the highest points. Those three poems will show up on the front page. In case of tie between the two or almost three poems get the same points so those three poems will become front page winners.

The rest of the next and best 6-8 poems which will be left according to the points will get HM's.

Nothing will be anonymous anymore so their will be no controversies or questions will raise regarding the judges decision and all that other stuff. Anyone can open the thread and see who is voting and which poems are getting the highest votes.

I think it's easy to implement, I don't think Janis should be here to do this. The moderators can try it for a week. I think we should try it next week.