Chess Player of the Month April 2011

1. The grobe

2. Fezzik

List:

oinquarki     2

rigamagician

Writch     1

CBA     1

ivandh     2

Kacparov     7

TheGrobe     6

Windows-7_     2

mozerdozer

KiNg ChApO

Estragon     3

artfizz     4

Lucky

Gonnosuke

Conquistador     1

pathfinder416

Erik     4

yitzd

George1st

cheater_1

dalephilly     1

ChristianSoldier007

fezzik     5

pdela     5

Even mice can't vote for the same person twice.

ha ha ha.. awww - hard cheese

I think in the case of royalbishop's campaign for Natalia Pogonina, proknight could look at the members who voted for her, and remove the votes of members which are in the We Love Natalia Pogonina group. This would be the most fair solution, if we can talk about fairness here.

Sorting 'genuine' from 'We Love... ' groups - good luck with that. It'll only get worse as time goes on. I think proK is being fair, after all - rules were set from the beginning and if proK were to stick to his guns, then maybe.. just maybe.. these 'ad groups' will lessen.

I doubt it but.. just maybe. Anyway, good on you proK - it'll be a good read this 'ere topic, whatever the outcome

I think that might open up a can of worms, because if the candidacy stands, then every single vote has to be judged as to whether it is worthy.  What if someone in that group says he never even saw the forum message and voted for her anyway?  After all, the fact that someone was in that group in the first place suggests they would already be inclined to vote for her.  The timing might seem an unlikely coincidence, but who could prove otherwise?

The problem with the advertising is it tainted any votes for her that were cast from that moment forward.  No one can say for sure whether any specific vote after that was or was not swayed by the ad, so I think the most fair thing is what was done, the removal of the candidate from the list.  Also, royalbishop is a member of almost 100 groups.  There could be other ads or messages we don't know about-- how much additional sleuthing should proknight be required to do once it is known for sure that a definite attempt was made to influence the vote outcome?

At the very best, I'd say if she's left on the list her vote total would have to be frozen at the count she had before the moment of the ad (1:40 a.m. April 26 in my time zone), which means she couldn't win anyway.  However, in this instance I don't mind the rule being applied as written.  It's too bad proknight is in this position anyway, since this is all just done for fun.

It seems ironic to put much effort into winning when the only thing one receives for winning is a ban from future ballots.  By not getting nominated each month, I can keep my potential candidacy alive forever.  

My votes:

1. oinquarki for keeping me laughing
2. ivandh for also keeping me laughing

Here is my suggestion, to prevent "campaigning" - warn the campaigner, and if they continue campaigning, then you block them.  Anyone can do this, and it is unfair for someone else to suffer because of someone's ignorance (not said in a mean fashion) or sly measures.  I would try to create a system that balances this, and all votes must have valid reasons behind them, otherwise they are cancelled.  If people continue to vote for Natalia, they must have a valid reason.  Even if it was "influenced" by previous campaigning, if the voter can supply valid reasoning behind their choice, then the vote should stand.  This being said, people who have read other comments have all been influenced slightly by other people's appraisals.  Each voter's reasoning is a small "campaign" of its own.  

ditto

i'd also vote for thegrobe if i get a third

List:

oinquarki     4

rigamagician

Writch     1

CBA     1

ivandh     4

Kacparov     7

TheGrobe     6

Windows-7_     2

mozerdozer

KiNg ChApO

Estragon     3

artfizz     4

Lucky

Gonnosuke

Conquistador     1

pathfinder416

Erik     4

yitzd

George1st

cheater_1

dalephilly     1

ChristianSoldier007

fezzik     6

pdela     5

_____________________________

Kacperov, if I remove votes from the We Love Pogonina Group, how will I know if someone a few days later votes from the campaign.

TheMouse, those are good points. However, my resolution is going to be based on trust. I trust that people would not do that and vote by the rules.

Proknight do as you think is best :))

Thanks, but I do take suggestions seriously :))

You mean all those people got cookies?

I'd say the critical difference is that Natalia's campaign was in earnest.

I never got any cookies...typical politician.

   No.  The critical difference, outside of the cookies thing which is silliness,  is that WGM Pogonina had no involvement in the so-called campaign on her behalf. 

   It's been said before that this award is to some degree a popularity contest.  That someone mentions the fact that one of the contestants involved is a person those people feel some affinity towards, even if the mentioning itself was in encouraging terms, doesn't strike me so much as campaigning - which is more an organized series of efforts - as a simple encouragement of those folks to vote on their person's behalf. The assumption, even if it's true, that they never voted before, as part of a reason to either call it a campaign or to deny their vote seems rather misguided.

   Actually, I tend to agree with Fezzik (G-d forgive me) in that the best course would be to do away with the clause against campaigning since, not only can one control it, one can't even define it to everyone's satisfaction.  Beyond that, the idea of campaigning, to me, adds a rather flavourful ingredient to this whole recipe - it would make it more fun and bring in people who otherwise might never vote  and  do away with the disagreeable business of trying to monitor violations.

No difference in my mind.

I believe there is a difference -- goldendog is much more likely to smite you for hyphenating his name.