So. . .
It's been a day or two and I have seriously thought this out. Read the debates and considered both arguments.
All of us, who has, and continue to be Hosts, know the stress, and time involved in doing such. We all have agreed that each Host has the right to alter or try new things when taking on the responsibility. Some of us run a tight ship to ensure a smooth and enjoyable HoF for all. Some of us are quite relaxed to allow a more free flow, allowing those on the fence ample time to join in or simply observe. As well as for those of us that run very, very late in finishing. Giving our procrastinating @sses extensions to finish up.
This helps these HoFs to grow and to continue forward in every positive way in varying styles while still adhering to a basic understanding and agreement to simple protocols. Each of us making it known in our opening thread our preferences on how we'd like to run said Hall of Fame.
The issue here is whether or not that key position which is a position of trust, has been less than bias in the final voting. And why.
I do know that mistrust; The re-occurring belief that the process was hampered with, was what made the Song Tournaments go spiraling down. That belief killed participation for a lot of us - including myself. So Citizen Rules has a valid concern here. There has been an unspoken understanding that Hosts wait to look at ballots until after they have voted. That their vote is as uninformed as the participants.
It's a trust thing.
Now, as stated before, a Host does have the right to conduct their HoFs as they deem fitting.
Normally expressed in the opening thread, or at some point in the thread so that the participants are aware of such. So, the fault lies that Siddon did not inform us his preference when it came to addressing ties and a wish to eliminate them when he Hosts.
Could it have been handled better? Well, hindsight is -- well, spilled milk. It is what it is and we address, discuss and move forward.
Breaking this down to actual Intent.
From what I have read, Siddon's reasoning is simply to keep ties out of the vote. A basic preference.
But, unfortunately, one that raises concerns of other manipulations and thereby the basic "trust" of the position. A valid concern.
For me, if there was a more nefarious scenario, I don't think Siddon would have spent time finding the appropriate gif and posting in the thread regarding such. He would have kept quiet, and continued to manipulate behind the scenes.
So I do believe that Siddon simply dislikes ties and plays tie-breaker. And tie-breaker only.
Therefore, it may be a good idea for further HoFs that Siddon hosts, and hopefully he continues to, that expresses such in the opening post. And we, as participants, knowing that, can accept and join or decide otherwise. (Just a simple suggestion from a simple man)
In the end, we ALL want these HoFs to run better and continue to be threads of enjoyment with the only strife being in the more passionate debates regarding any given movie. Which is why we discuss these things and find a solution that works for all involved, if at all possible.
I, myself, cannot simply vote Yes. This is a matter of trust and keeping things above board and open to everyone involved and to those who enjoy reading from the sidelines.
But I also cannot vote No when the final mistake is not informing participants of a dislike of ties and an attempt to remove them. A preference that could have been expressed previously and I am unable to to fully cast a negative vote against an oversight of the Host expressing their personal wishes regarding their Hall of Fame.
So, in the end, i find that I do have to Abstain. For all the reasons above.
Thank you all for allowing me to blather on.
Reply to Topic
