Let's see if we have a clear winner. If we do not we can have a run- off. Massimo
On Oct 20, 10:56 pm, Anthony <av201...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 11:27 pm, weheh <richard_gor...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Isn't the voting going to be done such that votes for clone designs > > will be aggregated? If so, artificially directing people to vote for > > one of the designs might, in fact, skew the results and rob you of > > useful information that might be used to improve the final pick. I > > think it's best right now to let the voting take place without a lot > > of hoopla. And anyway, in the end, it's Massimo's choice. > > I have not seen any statement indicating that votes for clone designs > will be aggregated (it was suggested -- I think by you -- but no > official word on whether it will happen). In any case, who decides > what counts as a clone design? For example, two of the #5 variants > have snake heads, one has wings, and one includes the former "bat" > logo -- they all have the same base logo, but they may not all be > strictly considered clones (in other words, some people who voted for > some of these variants may not want their vote lumped in with the > other variants). For example, let's say I voted for #36, but I really > don't like #5 -- if you count #36 as a clone of #5, then my vote for > #36 may ultimately end up helping #5 win, which is contrary to my > preference. The way to handle clones is with approval voting or one of > the other methods already discussed, not with post hoc aggregation by > the vote administrator. > > Of course, if Massimo will ultimately make the final call and will > simply use the vote tally as an input to his decision, then I agree > that all this voting strategy is less important -- he'll be able to > see the full distribution of votes and make a reasonable judgment. But > again, it hasn't been made clear whether that will happen or whether > we simply plan to go with whichever logo wins the vote. > > Anthony
