The TV IV talk:IVy Awards/Future IVy Awards/Archive1

The 95 Theses: Globalization

Ok this sounds reasonable (aside from the fact that no proposals should exclude IV users feedback), but what about the shows that will not get picked up by U.S. stations. For example, the vast majority of non-english language shows will never be picked up in the U.S. Some spanish language shows might, but most won't, and almost no shows outside those two languages will. For example there is not a big enough Korean speaking population to market those shows to in the U.S. These should not be left out and we need to find a way to include them next time. --MateoP 20:43, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

If we were to gain a large enough Korean, Spanish-language or even Burkina Fasoan user base and the technological capabilities of fairly administering awards voting, we would certainly consider expanding the IVies to encompass those nations. If that does not happen, it's a pity, but there's not a whole helluva lot we could do about that. Fortunately, there is a lot of room on the World Wide Web, I'm sure, for a Korean Website to run its own awards for Korean television. JCaesar 20:49, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Wow. I posted my comment at 20:43 and you had a reply up by 20:49. In that 6 minute time span you managed to evaluate all possible ways to incorporate excluded shows and conclude that none were feasible? Be patient chap, we have a year to figure this out. No need to be so resistent to change. I realize this is your baby but it's time to cut the umbilical cord. --MateoP 20:56, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Sorry I didn't spend days carefully weighing all 101 of the words in your last comment and researching them, but when did I conclude that none were feasible? I said if it were ever feasible, it would certainly be considered, but if it's not, there's not much that can be done about that. I think it might help if you'd take longer than seven minutes to conclude that the "elitist" admins are attacking and dismissing you. JCaesar 21:02, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

I don't need seven minutes to conclude that. You see, while it might cost $9.95 to post on the SA forums it doesn't cost anything to read the SA forums. So I already know that some are dismissing me; as one admin admitted by saying "the solution here is to contradict him on something without relenting and eventually he'll leave in a fit of e-rage". So if bashing people behind their back is your thing, you might want to take that somewhere that the public eye can't follow.

Meanwhile I have an alternative idea: let's all be grown ups and work towards building consensus through carefully considering positions and trying to find a good middle ground on things. That means when someone says "here's a problem, how do we fix it?" we first throw out ideas on how to fix the problem. If you don't want to fix the problem that's your perogative, but discouraging people from fixing the problem doesn't build consensus or consolidate a friendly community. Now if we can just put petty grudges aside our collective minds can probably do a lot for this fine television database. --MateoP 21:32, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

First, yes, you're being bashed. You're also being defended. Discussion of you has taken place elsewhere, both public and private, but it's been kept off this Website because it has no business here. Nothing's happened to affect you. You haven't been blocked, you haven't had all your edits reverted. But if you're going to be the annoying guy in the office, your coworkers are going to complain about you around the water cooler. That's life.

Hey, if you want to bash people behind their back that's your perogative. Just save the "no one's attacking you or dismissing you" nonesense for someone who buys it. I'm not. And you really need to get a grip on thinking every criticism of a system is an attack on you. It's not. When I say the voting system is elitism, I'm saying the voting system is elitist. You are not the voting system. I will continue to criticize undemocratic and/or unopen systems. That's all I've ever done here. And more times than not it's resulted in increased transparency. So if you find it annoying when someone questions something you've done instead of just trusting your judgment, I'm sorry because I will continue to question everything. And it's not an attack on anyone. --MateoP 23:00, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

As far as "ideas on how to fix the problem," you've been noticeably light on all of those. You say we need to include Korean TV shows, but you don't offer a single suggestion as to how that could be done. What, did you expect us all to say, "Yes, sir, right away, sir, we'll get on that Korean thing right away to please you, sir"? Sorry, that's not how it works. I did say two ways the problem would be resolved: 1.) In the event that a sizable base of Korean users signs up, and the technological capabilities to administer voting become available to us, we most certainly would expand the IVy Awards to Korean TV shows. Alternatively, 2.) A Korean Website with a previously established Korean audience could set up its own awards. How are these not plausible, realistic solutions to the problem?

Neither of those are solutions. You are essentially saying that it isn't a problem at all. You are saying we should do nothing. Which I guess is fine, just don't be suprised when someone is a little irritated when their problems are shot down within minutes of bringing them up (especially by someone who has been calling them names behind their back). --MateoP 23:01, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

As for why I haven't offered a solution to this particular problem, I haven't done one because I don't have one yet. That's the reason I brought it up; so it can be discussed. There's no need to hold back on bringing up problems until you have already solved them. That's not a very open or wiki thing to do. Especially when you have 1 year to solve it. We have all the time in the world.

Thus far, I've addressed all of your concerns with solutions, which you have not done once, except for exaggerating what a serious problem it is that you disagree with the way the Awards are administered and set up, using words like "stupid," "elitist" and "silly." You said it was unfair that only admins get to vote for the official nominees, but did you offer technology to make all-user voting plausible? No.

Wrong, I did offer a solution that didn't get any responses. I actually brought it up twice. --MateoP 23:00, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

You just made unfair generalizations about the backgrounds and interests of 14 people you've never met and inaccurate comments regarding the financial structure of this Website, then pissed and moaned about how others were making personal attacks.

I did not make any comment about the financial situation of the website; you took that comment literally when I was speaking figuratively. And while I might use rhetoric at times that sounds like I am being critical of specific people's motivations, I am actually untrusting of people in general's motivations. But if you think I am saying that I think you are just going to elect your friends; does this help: I'm sorry. Ok, now that that's taking care of, I'm still never going to trust power on anything. And I shouldn't have to. Because letting the whole community decide is always better. That includes proposals. You shouldn't be making proposals somewhere else and then adding the finished product here. If you don't like the term elitist (which is accurate), then exclusory can not be denied. It's like saying regular users aren't good enough to have a hand in it.

You complained about the Comedy vs. Drama divisions, but outside of saying, "We should use more common sense and make these rules less hard-and-fast," you didn't offer a hint of a suggestion of a solution. I responded with a solution which had already been worked out and was already in effect: We use the categorizations of the programs, and when there was a conflict, then and only then do we use runtime. You complained about the lack of international scope, and again, I responded with two highly workable solutions. Are there other solutions out there? I'm sure there are. But you're not proposing any.

A lot of people have been doing a lot of work for this fine television database, but never in the history of the world has complaining and levelling unfair accusations qualified as work to improve anything, dude. JCaesar 22:00, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Criticism and complaint are not synonyms. When I say "this is bad" you're not expected to fix it immediately. If we just take our time and talk about things we can find good middle ground that works. And we have plenty of time to do so. So let's calm down and find solutions for the problems. I'll start. --MateoP 23:00, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

MateoP, in response to your comments: No one is attacking or dismissing you here, which is what counts. If I (or any of the other admins, for that matter) think every criticism is an attack, why would I have changed the system for the IVy Awards multiple times from my initial proposal to now? Why would there have been any discussion of it anywhere? Why, for that matter, would I have set up this page specifically to raise issues and suggestions for improvement? Furthermore, why would I have already indicated, in response to numerous other suggestions, that specific alterations can be and likely will be implemented, and even offered temporary solutions to resolve those issues in the meanwhile?

Setting up an International IVies or international categories in the IVies at such time as it is feasible is a solution. How can you possibly argue that it's not? The fact that you consider it a dismissal is nothing short of ludicrous. "When we have enough Korean users to make it plausible, we will look into adding new features to accommodate them." How is that hard to understand? If it sounds like I'm dismissing the "problem," it's probably because, until there are enough users to allow the solution, it isn't a problem. If there are no (or a very, very small number) of users who would have any interest in voting for or against a series which has only aired in Korea, how are we excluding users who don't exist or don't exist in large enough numbers to plausibly implement their own awards? If there are many such users, how is it not a solution to extend our scope to include them? I've said time and again, other admins have said time and again, and it's on the Main Page at the top in a big box that we would all love to have users from every country on the globe and information on TV series which air everywhere. At this time, that is not the case. How could we possibly be excluding users we don't have? That doesn't even make sense.

It's patently ridiculous to imply that we think regular users "aren't good enough" to take part in the IVy Awards. In fact, we've been doing everything we can to encourage more users to take an active role in the process. That's why we created these nomination proposal pages in the first place, and limited the nominations and winners in competitive categories to candidates proposed on those pages. That's why we're inviting our most prolific and helpful editors to help us select official nominees and winners. That's why we have a site announcement on the top of every page, a "Featured Event" on the main page and notices in places outside of the TV IV to encourage people to participate. You accuse us of being exclusionary and elitist, yet your proposed voting process allows only editors with 50 or more edits to take part in any phase of the process. The truth is, we welcome participation from new users—users who, in fact, may have signed up in the last few weeks for the express purpose of getting involved in the Awards. The last I looked, at least three contributors to the Awards discussion pages had never contributed to any other page on the TV IV before, and many new users have signed up on or after June 1. That's not a bad thing. We're thrilled. We don't want to shut them out. The reason we set up the Awards in the first place was to create an incentive for new users to join and increase our traffic. It is our sincerest hope that those new users would then stick around and help edit pages and increase the quality and scope of our database, and maybe eventually become so prolific as to be considered "top editors" themselves.

As you have been told time and again, the reason all users are not currently involved in the final two phases of the official nominees and winners selection is because it is not technologically feasible at this time. This is not a judgement based on our elitist and exclusionary prejudices; it is a judgement based on past policies which proved to be flawed, and which we had to revise. You have offered no technology to correct that problem, merely reiterated that—damn the lessons of experience—we need to repeat past mistakes or else we're big, elitist, exclusionary jerks. If you really think that is what is meant when someone says, "We need a suggestion for a workable solution," I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. JCaesar 00:22, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

If I (or any of the other admins, for that matter) think every criticism is an attack,

You've characterized all of my criticisms as an attack. That's incorrect. --MateoP 01:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

1.) No, actually, I have not characterized all of your criticisms as an attack. You claimed to have read the thread in the SA Forums which discussed you, in which case, you certainly would have seen this comment, posted by a user named (coincidentally enough) "JCaesar": "The shame of it is, now he's actually adding useful discussion (both disagreeing and agreeing) to the category pages. When he's acting like a rational human being and not the Internet's answer to Che Guevara, he's actually a worthwhile contributor, which just makes his belligerence all the more annoying."

But, you're right, nobody has characterized any of Stabbey's suggestions as an attack, nor Lampbane's, Boco_T's or PrincessKate's. Just yours. Golly, MateoP, wonder why that could be. (And before you go off, remember that I was not around during the Willie9 incident, so let's nip that in the bud right there.) JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

why would I have changed the system for the IVy Awards multiple times from my initial proposal to now? Why would there have been any discussion of it anywhere? Why, for that matter, would I have set up this page specifically to raise issues and suggestions for improvement?

There wasn't any discussion of it here, that's the major problem. If they are the IVy awards then IV users should get to decide how the systems works from the beginning. Also this page seems to suggest that you get to decide what improvements are selected. Whether that is the case, it shouldn't be. The IV gets to decide . That should be done first by consensus and then if there is much disagreement, by vote. Not by you or anyone else deciding for themselves what is a good idea and what not. --MateoP 01:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

At the time I first suggested the IVy Awards, I didn't post them here because I had no authority to post them here. I wasn't an administrator. I was an SA user who had six weeks earlier made my first edits to the TV IV Wiki, and I was just throwing out a fun idea to the guys who were putting in the work for something fun they might do for themselves. At the time, I didn't even take it for granted that I should vote in the Awards.

And where did you get the idea that, in a privately-owned and run organization, everything should be up for the vote of everybody? That's ludicrous. Ultimately, in any organization, the people who are going to be the ones who end up having to actually implement anything are going to have to be the ones who make the final decisions on everything. Even in a true democracy—the ones which are run publicly—we don't vote on every single bill or resolution, nor do we enact it—legislators and bureaucrats do. That's their job.

If we left every aspect of the Awards (or, for that matter, anything) up for vote, nothing would ever get done. And as long as you're bashing the subject of discussion in the SA Forums, may I remind you that if it weren't for the SA Forums, there wouldn't be a TV IV Wiki, let alone the IVies. This whole project exists because some people suggested it on the SA Forums, a couple others agreed to lend a hand, and CygnusTM, Wizardryo, Waffle Iron and a couple others put in the initial elbow grease to build a Website so folks like you could come along later and call them "elitists" for not consulting you on every single decision. JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

"When we have enough Korean users to make it plausible, we will look into adding new features to accommodate them." How is that hard to understand?

It's hard to understand because it #1: It isn't specific. How many is "enough Korean users"? Why should only Korean users get counted for this anyways? Shouldn't anyone who watches Korean shows by whatever means be counted? #2: It's arbitrary. Who gets to decide? What basis is there for saying a certain number of users is enough? --MateoP 01:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

OK, MateoP, let's hold it up for a vote. POLL QUESTION: How many Korean users do we need to include Korean TV shows in the Awards? Check one box: {} 2 {} 7 {} 42 {} 33,274 . Vote now, but only if you've contributed at least 543 edits, or have a punctuation mark somewhere in your user name.

Can we change that or to an and? Then I'll be the only person elligible to vote and can just pick which ever one I want :) --The-jam 04:05, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

The answer to your question is, "Whenever it looks right." If we suddenly find we've got pages for dozens and dozens of Korean TV shows, and there are multiple contributors with edits to those pages, and one or more of them is willing to step up to the plate and help implement an awards process for those shows, and the initial response to that awards process is significant, Jesus, cool, we'll have Korean TV awards! Sounds good to me.

As for British, Canadian and Australian users, we are including them. I have suggested ways to do this. And if these IVy Awards are successful, and if there is a huge call for it, and if somebody in a position to organize British, Canadian or Australian Awards voting is willing to do so, I'd say there's a very high likelihood you'll see British, Canadian and/or Australian IVy Awards on this site very, very soon. But if there's nobody who is both willing and able to organize and run them, then what the hell, exactly, do you expect us to do? You can hold all the votes you want for it wherever you want to vote, that's not going to get the thing done. I'd run British votes, but I'm not British. I don't have access to British TV beyond BBC America. What do you want me to do? JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

How could we possibly be excluding users we don't have? That doesn't even make sense.

We are already excluding many British based shows that aren't running in the U.S. Contrary to your above comments, the majority of British shows don't get picked up in the U.S. Only some. This is a problem. If we are excluding some, any, we should be looking for ways to include them. However not only have you not provided ways to do this (which is fine), you've actively campaigned against trying. I say leave this to someone else if you aren't interested. You don't own the IVy Awards, which means you don't have to participate in everything about it. --MateoP 01:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

You accuse us of being exclusionary and elitist, yet your proposed voting process allows only editors with 50 or more edits to take part in any phase of the process. The truth is, we welcome participation from new users—users who, in fact, may have signed up in the last few weeks for the express purpose of getting involved in the Awards.

No, I have no problem with all users contributing to the nomination phase. In fact I have no problem with all users contributing to ALL phases if possible, which I'm not convinced that it isn't possible (we only have 2 precedents for voting attempts and only 1 went bad, and not even that bad. The featured show voting never had a problem of any kind). You're method clearly excludes the vast majority of users from the 2 decision rounds. At worst mine would only exclude users who either sparingly edit or signed up at a suspicious time from the voting process only. My method is more inclusive and it's not even close.

We're talking about 1,000+ possible participates to however many you are allowing in. Which, by the way, if you are claiming your method isn't elitist, why aren't you telling us how many voters there are and who they are? How can you claim the method is not elitist if it was proposed and revised OUTSIDE the wiki, the voters were determined by administrators only, and those voters aren't being kept secret from the wiki. There is no possible way to claim that is not an elitist process. --MateoP 01:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

I haven't mentioned who the voters are because they haven't been asked to register for the voting forum yet, and some of them may choose not to participate for whatever reason (time conflicts, lack of interest, etc.). It's also possible that some of the people previously put forth as "top editors" will not be asked. (For instance, there was this one guy whose name was put forward and was approved, but then he kinda turned out to be an impetuous pain in the ass who hurled insults at the administrators, and some of us aren't really sure that we really wanna deal with that garbage for the rest of the summer.) Once we know who the voters are and how many there are, I'll be happy to disclose the number of voters, although it's still questionable whether we will also disclose who they are. (Like with the Emmys, the Oscars, the Golden Globes and the friggin' People's Choice Awards and every vote in every democracy, some measures will be taken to ensure that people's specific votes are anonymous. Not because we're hidden elitists who like to hide what we're doing from everybody, but because we have, y'know, some respect for people's privacy.) JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

As you have been told time and again, the reason all users are not currently involved in the final two phases of the official nominees and winners selection is because it is not technologically feasible at this time. This is not a judgement based on our elitist and exclusionary prejudices; it is a judgement based on past policies which proved to be flawed, and which we had to revise.

Specifically, which past policies? There have been 2 voting attempts to my knowledge. The logo contest had a problem of people voting multiple times. Currently non-registered users can't edit pages anymore so this problem is nil. There is only the slight plausible problem that a user would register multiple accounts. It's plausible but as far as I know there is no case of this ever happening. The only other voting we ever had was the featured show section. That went without problem every time. It was only pulled from voting because the claim was that not enough people voted. --MateoP 01:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

The logo contest occurred after registration was required to edit. Evidence showed that people had registered multiple times to vote. We have no mechanism other than manual examination of the logs to prevent this. Also, we have no way of validating whatever other criteria we come up with to define elligible voters. When there exists a secure mechanism for collecting one (and only one) vote from each authenicated elligible voter, we can talk about opening the vote. --CygnusTM^talk 14:26, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

As I told JCaesar, even if this is true you can still always use the exact same method used now, except allow users to simply sign their names to a page volunteering as voters. That wouldn't be ideal, but it would at least be fair. --MateoP 16:35, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

The current method requires a manual process for each voter. First, the voter's elligibility needs to be verified. This requires a manual check of edit history. If approved, the voter's account on the voting site needs to be manually activated. This is fine for the 20 or so voters we expect with the current process. We could be looking at hundreds if it's opened to all. --CygnusTM^talk 08:44, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Continued

Wait. I'm confused. So your solution is to implement this restrictive system without any kind of reasonably fool-proof system in place to ensure that it is secure by its own restrictions? That, basically, we'd be operating on the honor system unless someone happens to catch that someone else is cheating the system. And further, that the entire process would be open to both vote rigging and vote cancellation by means of open "peer review"? I suppose that would be somewhat easy to police if, say, only two or three dozen or so voters participate, but if it's much more than that (say, 312 - a mere 10% of our current registered users), it certainly sounds to me like one hell of a mess.

No reason to think so. The logo contest was worst case scenario, and it had NO restrictions and anonymous users could vote. Even under that worst case scenario the problem was discovered and fixed.

The logo contest was also one issue and a simple poll, not a choice of three then a choice of one in upwards of 20 categories over the course of a summer. What's more, people tend to have less strong reactions to what the picture is in the upper lefthand corner of their screens than what the best comedy of last year was. The fact that there was any voter tampering on the logo vote bodes ill for awards, I'd say. JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

Of course, if only two or three dozen voters participate, it wouldn't be so hard. On the other hand, we already have implemented a system in which two or three dozen voters can participate and will be participating in the official nominees and winners voting, and that system is secure and as fool-proof as anything on the Internet can possibly be in regards to vote tampering and cancellation. But I kinda get the impression your whole argument is that the currently implemented system allows too few voters, so if the only way your solution would be plausible is if the number of voters were about the same, I don't really understand what the problem is. Are you suggesting we implement a more complicated, less secure system to accommodate almost nobody?

No, I'm saying we implement some system whereby administrators don't get to decide who's worthy of voting and who's not. Please make suggestions.

Your reference to the small number of votes for the "Featured Show" also has me at a bit of a loss. Again, if so few people participated in those, are you suggesting we implement a brand new system to incorporate the votes of people who don't actually want to vote in the first place?

No, for users who do want to vote and aren't currently able to under this system.

Forgive my bafflement, I'm just confused as to what the goal would be of your proposal, and what "problem" it is meant to address.

The fact that users currently don't get to decide for themselves if they want to participate.

Users with long histories (I used 250 edits as my cut-off, for what it's worth, although some consideration was given to users with few page edits who had contributed one or two highly useful features), preferably (but not exclusively) on multiple series, with spotless histories of not being insulting or sloppy will be able to decide for themselves if they want to participate. If they don't, we're not going to put a gun to their heads. JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

Is the problem that an extremely small handful of people are being excluded from one phase of the process, and we therefore need to reinvent the entire process from scratch to include that almost statistically inexistent minority? Or is the problem that we are excluding a large number of people from a process most of them don't seem to be terribly interested in participating in to begin with? Or is the problem that we are excluding a large number of people from a process they would mostly be interested in participating in? If your answer is that last one, again I must ask if there is a process which would be both equitable and relatively fool-proof to police the restrictions you have suggested, short of appointing one or two people (who would not be paid, incidentally) to manually research and regulate all of the hundreds or thousands of votes. JCaesar 01:41, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

1) Inclusivity is more important than fool-proof. If a couple of users decide ON THEIR OWN, that they want to work extra hard double checking that the votes are legit, then there is nothing wrong with that. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that if more people vote there are more potential peer reviewers. If there are less voters, then there are less peer reviewers but also less to check.

1.) I don't see why you would say inclusivity is more important than fool-proof accuracy. On any level of a Wiki. So... my four-year-old niece wants to start filling in Baby Looney Tunes episode guides with "aobaughbahobhahdga" on every page. Should I just leave it be? I mean, I don't want to exclude the little tyke. 2.) I have seen nothing on any Website ever to suggest that people willing to vote in a poll are also significantly more willing to peer review. A small handful of people in the world are willing to put in the extra work (and, again, I must thank The-jam this year for his help), but I think the two groups are entirely independent of one another. JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

As to your choices, I don't know which is correctly. That's the point. We don't know. We DO know one thing, everyone who has participated in the recommendation round probably wouldn't mind participating in the voting round too. Does your system include all of them? If not, then there's your problem. Find a solution. I'm trying to work with you. You're not offering the same thus far.

Not everybody who has participated in the recommendation round will be asked to participate in this year's official nomination and voting round, no. Again, by your standards, they wouldn't be able to participate in your official nomination and voting rounds. There are at least three users who have participated thus far who had contributed only to the awards pages. We thank them and welcome them to the TV IV and are looking forward to their future contributions, and it is our sincerest hope they will someday have well over 250 edits, but if they cannot or do not choose to participate further, we sincerely appreciate their support. However, thus far, all users who have contributed to the discussion have also had their contributions history and past records examined for consideration in inclusion in the voting process, and for those who have already proven themselves to be helpful, problem-free contributors, there is a high likelihood they will be invited to vote. JCaesar 03:34, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

To give you an idea of the scope of what I'm talking about here (and so I'm not accused of dismissiveness): To date, 26 users have proposed a total of 192 candidates and 83 titles for nomination. There has been no policing of who is participating (because everyone is allowed to participate), although I have been policing the eligibility of those candidates, and have already had to declare seven candidates and six titles ineligible—either for the awards or for the categories to which they were submitted, and an eighth candidate and seventh title is still under investigation. (That excludes formatting and other alterations I've had to make.) Because I unfortunately do not have memorized the release dates of every TV show and the programming schedule of each US cable station, most of these submissions (and many submissions which I did decide were eligible) required research. Only one user (The-jam) has helped me research when titles he himself did not submit were eligible and posted his findings on the discussion pages. Every day for the last eight days, I have spent upwards (sometimes way upwards) of two hours a day working on these pages. That's a minimum of 16 hours of my life (and it is, in fact, a lot more than that, and still more when you factor in the initial proposal, tests, admin forum discussion, etc., etc., etc.) just for this year's awards. And, again, it has not been necessary to investigate the contributions history of each of those 26 voters. Also remember, there are still 15 days remaining just in this phase of the process.

Let's pretend those 26 voters end up being this year's voters and the only voters this year, that there are no further proposed candidates, and each voter abstains from voting in, on average, two competitive categories. (In fact, the number of actual voters will be close to 26, possibly a little over, and I'm excluding the "non-competitive" categories—in other words, categories without official nominees, i.e.: the Special Awards and the IVy League Hall of Fame Awards. I'm also not going to take into account run-off votes.) There are 20 categories. In each category, each voter is allowed to choose three candidates to vote for as "official nominees." 26 x (20-2) x 3 = 1404 votes. In addition, each of those 26 voters then votes for one winner. 26 x (20-2) = 468 votes. 192 + 1404 + 468 = 2064 votes which I would be policing just this year, again excluding a lot of other variables.

So when you say that 2000 votes could be easily policed (and re-policed) by peer review, forgive me if I conclude that you're not being terribly realistic. And certainly if many more than 26 users vote, the suggestion that there be no automated system in place for review becomes almost laughable. Five percent of our current user list is 156 voters, who would then be submitting over ten thousand votes which would rely on peer review to keep honest. That's why I asked if you know of any technology to make this proposal remotely feasible. I'm not just trying to shoot down your idea because of a perceived personal problem I have with you; I'm trying to illustrate just what a massive issue this is to consider. JCaesar 02:28, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

More users = more police. If 2 in 26 users are currently volunteering their time to peer review, then it is reasonable that 12 in 156 users would likely volunteer their time to police.

I don't know if you ever took a statistics class, but "2 in 26" is hardly what is known as a representative sample by any definition. It is not reasonable to assume, if 2 in 26 people police the awards, that 12 in 156 will. If 2 in a group of 26 people do something, it might mean 12 in 156 will, or it might mean 2 in 156 will, and your first batch of 26 just happened to pick up those two. From my experience with other Websites, the answer seems to be a lot closer to the latter than the former. JCaesar 07:10, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

But let's leave this suggestion alone for a time being. What about the other suggestion, that there is a signup sheet that people volunteer to vote prior to the process? While this would not be ideal, it would at least get rid of part of the problem, making voters the decision of users themselves and not just administrators. Also, what alternatives do you have to guarantee that anyone who wants to vote, can vote? --MateoP 02:37, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

Maybe this is where we're running into a conflict, and the core assumption that needs to be addressed: I honestly don't see that "anyone who wants to vote" in two of three phases of this process should, therefore, be able to vote.

Obviously, we can't stop anyone in the world from deciding what they think is the best (or worst, as the case may be) television of the last year. The overwhelming majority will vote with their pocketbooks/remotes. Even on this site, all 3000-some-odd voters have voted for their favorite shows through strength of numbers. As it turns out, Lost is the Best Drama, and Arrested Development is the Best Comedy. (Or, well, I guess it's unfair of me to assume that Lost isn't a comedy, because "common sense" says it's often funny, so I guess Lost is the Best Comedy, too.) There, see, wasn't that easy? I know this because of search numbers and page views.

Even excluding the informal traffic vote, there are still numerous ways for you or anyone else in the world from Korea to Alaska, whether or not they have contributed to this site, to vote for your favorite TV shows. There are hundreds—nay, thousands—of Websites and magazines worldwide which enable anyone who cares to pick up a phone or click a link to vote for some damn "Reader's Choice" awards or another. Hell, if you really care all that much, there are the People's Choice Awards. They're established, they're recognized, and boy howdy, are they ever reputable! I know when I think "Quality Television," I think "People's Choice Awards."

Therefore, when I first suggested these awards four months ago (and I am terribly sorry I, a new user to this site, did not place that suggestion in a place where you could approve it; had I a time machine, I would surely hop back to February and say to myself, "No, you elitist ass! Don't post your fun idea to help someone else out on the Website where you first became aware of their hard work! Four months from now, you will be offending the sensibilities of one person out of 3000, and then you will be shamed, shamed!"), I did not intend to have those awards open to anyone who wanted to vote. I saw no reason to attempt to replicate the People's Choice Awards, TV.com's Reader's Choice Awards, the TV Guide Reader's Choice Awards, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Rather, my goal for a TV IV award process, at that time, was to add a fun feature to the site, and to have a feature which would give a neat admins who had put all their hard work and efforts into creating a unique Website which would be useful to people around the world by giving them a fun thing to do in the summertime, when user traffic is down and much of the monitoring of a site such as this becomes boring administrative work. I offered the suggestion that perhaps the voting could also be extended to a small handful of editors—those people who had, without being asked, paid or obligated, invested so much of their time and energy into helping those admins make this Website the unique and primary resource it is and hopefully will continue to be. At the time, I saw no reason I myself should necessarily presume to believe I should be included in that list. However, I also stated that, in my mind, the inclusion of even those editors was optional. It should be noted that no admin ever gave serious consideration to excluding those top editors—the possibility that they not be invited was entirely ignored and never given serious weight.

By my initial proposal, the awards would have been entirely exclusionary. That was, in fact, the whole idea. It was, again, my fellow administrators (most notably CygnusTM, Hawkman and Wizardryo) who proposed the method to expand the Awards to include all users who cared to participate. They did so largely because, if my goal was to reward our most helpful contributors, their goal was to increase traffic to the site at a time of year when it would otherwise decrease significantly, and also to encourage as much participation from their user base as possible. Thus, they proposed the proposal process, both to invite new users in, and to give our recurring users something new to "watch" during the summer.

Whether or not these goals have been accomplished, it is still too early to tell. When you accuse me of not being open enough to expanding and reinventing the awards, if true, it is perhaps because the verdict is not yet in on these, our first awards yet. So far, the early indicators seem good. My goal of adding a fun feature seems to have been accomplished—of the 20 or so non-admins who have participated, all but one of them seem to be having a lot of fun with it, which is thrilling to see. The goal of signing up new users seems to have been a success, and it is my fervent hope that those new users will continue to add useful contributions to other pages beyond the Awards pages whenever they are able. But there are still two and a half months to go before this entire process is finished. Perhaps people—including administrators and top editors—will lose interest as the summer stretches on into July and August. And I have yet to find out how this has affected our traffic, if at all.

But if I do not give serious enough consideration to you as to how to make the IVy Awards voting 100% democratic in every way, that is probably because I, personally, honestly do not see and have never seen that it ought to be 100% democratic in every way. I do not speak for the other admins or any other user on this site on this issue, only for myself. I do not see that it is "elitist" to provide some small reward—however small it ultimately may be in the grand scheme of things (hey, it ain't a $50K/year salary plus benefits package)—to the admins and those editors who have volunteered so much of their time and energy to making this site better. I do not see that it is "elitist" to provide some small incentive to others—including new users—to follow their example. I do not see that it is "elitist," after nine long months of those guys (and, as someone who was only admin-ized very recently, I still do not presume to take much credit for this at all) ensuring that this Website has run smoothly, been free of vandalism and inaccuracies and semantic edit wars and spam, to have something fun and cool and different to do for the other three months of the year. In my mind, the hard work they put in this last year is the reward and incentive they have given to those thousands of users who come here mostly to read the site but don't have the time or knowledge to contribute, and it's only fair that they get a small one in return.

That said, if these awards prove to be a tremendous success which brings in hundreds of new users and keeps our traffic up to Lost-finale levels (unlikely) over the next three months, and if such technology were to be available to automatically ensure with a minimum of long, painful re-editing, that the voting could be free of tampering, ballot-stuffing and vote cancellation, I would not be entirely opposed to a "Reader's Choice"-style award system down the line. If these awards and this site prove to be a fantastic, runaway success over the next year, I think it'd be great if we could have many types of IVy Awards down the road—Reader's Choice IVies, International IVies, Anti-IVies, Daytime IVies, Futuristic Cyborg IVies, etc.

But for right now, this project is still essentially in its infancy, and nothing more so than the IVy Awards. And, again, I simply do not see that it is a problem that the current and primary incarnation should favor those users—admins and editors—who have devoted so much more hard work than anyone else to making this entire project a success. Sorry if you disagree. JCaesar 07:10, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

That's the point, these current awards don't favor editors who have "devoted so much more hard work than anyone else", it favors whoever the admins thinks have "devoted so much more hard work than anyone else". The administrator aenematron hasn't had an edit since February, but if he chooses to show up, he's in.

I have said time and again, the decision is not arbitrary. It is based on number and variety of edits and stain-free record. Yes, if a user has had hundreds of edits but has also been disruptive or problematic, he will be excluded. That applied to exactly one person at the time. There is not a Website in the world which would ever want to encourage problem users by inviting them to other features. How is that hard to understand? As for the aenematron thing, so he hasn't updated in months. Maybe he's been busy, and he still is. He was still a big help prior to February, and that's why I said, "Over the last year." February is within the last 365 days, yes? That's why I haven't said exactly who will be voting, because I cannot predict the future. Prior to your going off on the awards, you hadn't updated in months, and yet you were still on the list for inviting, too. JCaesar 19:17, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

What constitutes "disruption" is arbitrary. Arbitrary means there are no logical boundaries. Using me as an example, I'm assuming I fall into the "problematic" category. But what exactly have I done wrong? Brought up some complaints? Called an elitist feature elitist? You have set up the process as a way to stifle dissent. What you consider to be problematic is arbitrary and harmful to the wiki because it encourages unquestioned trust. In addition, deciding how many edits is a good number is arbitrary as well. --MateoP 11:22, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

No, I never said you were disruptive. Annoying, yes, but not disruptive. And the reason your name has been removed from the list is because you specifically told CygnusTM you didn't want to be on the list. That's not a secret. It's just over on the other page. Coopting me makes the system none less elitist. I'm interesting in being a voter when all editors are voters. That would be just. That's what you said. JCaesar 18:20, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

I'm well aware that I don't want to participate in elitist awards. I was merely using myself as an example. I assumed that I was regarded as "problematic" apparently not. Of course, you are contradicting yourself. You said on the SA forums where you were calling me names and such that, "But the reason I formally withdrew his name from the list I'd submitted was because, whether or not he's sometimes a non-problem user, he's a problem user often enough that I don't want to condone essentially rewarding him for bad behavior, even if it would shut him up." So what's going on here? I was removed from the list because I said I didn't want to be on it, or because I'm a "problem user often enough". Can't be both. Got an answer for this? Or are we going to pretend like what is said off the wiki doesn't exist again, like we did with IndieRockLance who encouraged others to anger me into leaving.

Leaving that aside, if this requirement is not arbitrary, then what are the logical boundaries? You said that a user cannot be "problematic" or "disruptive". That makes little sense to me. The only problematic users are spammers and vandals. Those users shouldn't even be allowed to exist, period. What could a person do wrong and be allowed to stay around? If something is wrong, but not wrong enough to ban them, then it is based on arbitrary opinion on what constitutes a problem or disruption. There's really no way around it, unfortunately. Of course this has nothing to do with the awards being less/more elitist, as having people in authority hand pick worthy editors is elitist no matter how fair those qualifications might be. --MateoP 19:55, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

And as I recall, didn't you complain about the removal of a user who insisted on editing without adhering to anything remotely resembling formatting guidelines? And didn't you get into a tiff over at Wikipedia because you didn't want administrators to have the power to block repeated vandals, which now you're advocating?

No, no, and no. I can be contacted on my talk page if you ever want to ask me anything about my philosophical position or any of that. This page has nothing to do with that. But I can already see that's pretty much lost since you've abandoned the discussion and have instead gone with calling me a communist and such. Don't expect any answers back on this page, as I've already figured out from your resistance to the democratic method that you favor the elitist method ultimately. --MateoP 16:51, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Your ideas are not Communist. Demanding and placing unrealistic requirements on others, yes, but not Communist. Your rhetoric is hilariously revolutionary. So, yes, every time you start going off on any page about how the admins are quashing "personal freedom" (the freedom to vote in a bonus feature on a Website which nobody could ever have demanded that we set up in the first place) or weilding our "power" (administration of a single Website) like despots or refusing to recognize "democracy," you can also pretty much expect me to reply with a paraphrased quote from Lenin or Trotsky or Marx or Chairman Mao or even Martin Luther or Malcolm X or whichever revolutionary your hilariously hyperbolic rhetoric reminds me of. If you don't want me to paint you as a charicature, don't be a charicature. JCaesar 01:04, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

In answer to your question what the "formal withdrawal" meant, that was more figurative than anything else. You see, in order to get the top editors to the voting forum, someone is going to have to track them down, contact them with instructions on how to sign up, and someone else is going to have to ensure that the people who are contacted are actually the ones who are signing up. See, this is what I don't think you get. Every phase of this process requires someone actually doing the work to get things done. Sitting around and talking about what it would be great if we could do is one thing; actually getting it done is something else. So I had volunteered to be the one to contact everybody, and you were on the list of people I volunteered to contact. I was formally withdrawing my volunteering on the admin forums to track down your e-mail or AIM name or whatever and contact you regarding what you needed to do to sign up. (That said, if you hadn't withdrawn your name from consideration, CygnusTM or Wizardryo would likely have said, "No, go ahead and contact him," and I would've, but I didn't want to volunteer for it.) Formally withdrawing your list was my way of saying, "Man, screw that annoying pain in the ass. I'm sorry I offered him as someone I'd go to extra lengths to track down a few days ago." And I still say, "Man, screw that annoying pain in the ass." JCaesar 21:39, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

So when you said, "the reason all users are not currently involved in the final two phases of the official nominees and winners selection is because it is not technologically feasible at this time" that was a bold-faced lie. You never wanted any user to be able to participate. And then you still complain when I call it elitist. When you come up with a proposal off the wiki and don't submit it to community decision making like every other proposal, exclude people on arbitrary basis, and treat an improvement page as nothing more than a suggestion box for your picking you can't get angry if I call that elitist. It is elitist. You are inviting all administrators (regardless of their conduct and/or post record) and a few editors whom you think are "worthy" and it angers you that this is referred to as elitist. Sorry, it is elitist. And absolutely anti-wiki in every way.

1.) Administrators typically don't become administrators if they are disruptive vandals. And if they turn around and suddenly become disruptive vandals, they can be de-admined. 2.) I clearly said I spoke for myself and only for myself on that issue. Based on their other reactions, I have no doubt that the other admins would have established at least a separate, all-inclusive voting method if such a method were technologically feasible at the time. And I also said a "Reader's Choice" IVies are likely to be implemented if and when that should ever be true. 3.) The "top editors" selection is not arbitrary or based on personal bias. 4.) Again, I apologize for having submitted an idea to someone else in a place you could not post about it four bloody months ago, but short of hopping in a time machine, there is nothing I can do about it. 5.) This improvement page is not merely a suggestion box. If these rounds of awards prove to be successful, many of the suggestions on this page will be implemented. But of course not all of the suggestions are or will be feasible or worth the extra effort. Look, if all the users suddenly decided that we should also make up gold statuettes and mail them to the winners, that's a great idea that almost certainly wouldn't get implemented because it's too expensive at this time. I don't know if I'll be running these awards next year, because I don't have a crystal ball. (If I did, I wouldn't've posted to the SA Forums at the risk of making you mad about it four months later. Of course, since there was nowhere else I'd've known of at the time to post it where I had the authority, that would've meant I wouldn't've posted it anywhere, and quite honestly, there's a good chance these awards wouldn't exist at all. But, hey, collateral damage, right?) I could get hit by a bus or get a job which takes up too much of my time or be drafted into the army and sent off somewhere where they don't have computers. But whoever is running these awards next year will most certainly be making the final decisions as to how they are run, and which suggestions to implement. Again I say, ultimately the people who have to implement the changes are always going to be the ones who have to make the final decisions. That is always, always, always true in any organization anywhere. How do you not get that? Have you never run anything in your life? JCaesar 19:17, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

1) It is technologically feasible right now. The exact same method you are using now can be used without the elitist part. That means making a signup page and then from there doing it the exact same way. Your technologically feasible argument is debunked. Stop using it.

2) The top editors is arbitrary. There is no logical boundaries for what constitutes a top editor and what not. Therefore, it's based on opinion. Opinion of adminstrators only. That is elitist by definition.

The top editors is not arbitrary. Yes, it's based on opinion: The opinion of the people who actually have to do the work to make it possible for anyone to vote, based on what is feasible and workable within the limits of what we have, and which doesn't require a ton of extra work to accommodate a very small number of people who have any interest in being involved in the first place. Again I ask, how do you not get this? Have you ever—no, seriously, please answer me, because I don't think you have—have you ever run anything in your life? JCaesar 18:20, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes, I have. Now, back to the topic and away from ad-hominems. When I said the "top editors" is arbitrary I was talking about the selection process. You are talking about the decision to do "top editors" instead of democratically. Again, it is no extra work. Instead of you all setting around and picking who is worthy of your presence, you instead create a page where people add their names to a list if they want to be involved (including adminstrators). From there it would work the exact same way the current method work. There is no feasibility issue here. There is only whether you want this process to be open to everyone or for hand-picked elites. --MateoP 19:55, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

No, I get it. The history of the TV IV is the history of a class struggle between the class of modern power-weilders, or "administrators," who control the means of production, and the working class, or "users," who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live. JCaesar 21:39, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

3) In a wiki environment, all users get to decide how a feature is done. That means we as a whole get to decide which suggestions on this page to accept. Not you exclusively. Not the adminstrators exclusively. Of course you all have the power to throw your weight around and not allow this to be done democratically, but that again would be elitist and anti-wiki. In a wiki no one runs awards. It is run by the community as a whole. People contribute as they see fit. That's how wikis work. On personal freedom. --MateoP 11:22, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes, I get it, MateoP. You didn't land on the TV IV, the TV IV landed on you. JCaesar 18:20, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Not sure what this means. I'm not interested in playing games, though. Let's stick to the topic if we can. --MateoP 19:55, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

I was making fun of your continued assertions that the TV IV administrators are a regime of evil oppressors instead of a bunch of guys running a Website which is an informational resource above all else. JCaesar 21:39, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

But that's ok because we have a year to find the best method to open up the voting and we don't need your approval to do so. At minimum we can do your method excluding the part where some authority figure arbitrarily decides who gets to vote and instead allow users to decide for themselves by signing up to vote. That is how wikis work. --MateoP 10:41, 10 June 2006 (EDT)