[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The problem is that, even with Formendacil’s explanation, we are still left with no clear understanding of the basis upon which votes will be counted or discounted. He has not explained which votes from yesterday were discounted and which were not. Even had he done so, the position would be far from clear.

I agree. I've admitted that keeping which votes were accepted and which ones weren't (although some can be deduced) was a mistake. It is, however, a mistake that is over and done. All the records I've kept are the ones that you see on this thread.

For that reason therefore, I am not going to go back and list all of yesterday's votes and explain which ones are acceptable, and which ones aren't- because with the eyes of everyone on me, and being in a different frame of mind, I may well count differently and I have no desire to be further accused of bias.

What's done is done.

I shall, however- AND ALL YE TAKE HEED- be counting votes today based on Tolkien-related criteria. I shall analyse each vote and give a verdict. I should have done this before, but I didn't, I apologise, and at least I am doing it now.

To take a phantom’s ever so unbiased ( ) analysis as an example, I fail to see why votes for Elrond because of perceived character flaws (mormegil’s and Elu Ancalime’s, for example) should be discounted. Those personality flaws are necessarily Tolkien-based because they are based upon the voter’s perception of a character invented by Tolkien, albeit a perception undoubtedly (and, in my view, legitimately) skewed for game/humour purposes. They could, I suppose, have said something like “based on his behaviour in Middle-earth, he comes across to me as a sissy”, but what is the point of that? The first part of that sentence is surely implied by the context. Calling a vote into question simply because no specific reference is made to Tolkien or Middle-earth necessarily requires a value judgment to be made by the mod (as to whether he agrees with the reasons given by the voter). That is unacceptable as it brings the mod’s partiality into question and leads to far too much uncertainty.

The Phantom's analysis was not perfect- it was not MY analysis. However, I will say that it came close on some points...

Mod's partiality?

My dear SPM, have you completely forgotten the Silmarillion Survivor? Anguirel was partial to certain parties- very partial to certain parties.

He gave several characters a free bye into the later rounds by not introducing them till then, and (probably faulty) memory seems to recall him summarily killing off some of the characters simply because their "time had come".

If these votes are to be discounted, then why not also discount the votes for Oropher which simply relied on the fact that he is not mentioned by Tolkien much and so, by implication, did not do much? There is hardly any more intelligent reasoning involved. I can think of better reasons to give for evicting Oropher, such as that his rash charge in the War of the Last Alliance imperilled his side’s victory and got a lot of his people unnecessarily slain. So, if the votes of morm and Elu are to be discounted, then all of the votes for Oropher should also be discounted, leading to Elrond’s eviction.

But I would count all of those votes. On that basis, the only votes for Elrond which might arguably be discounted are those which were cast by Diamond and Gil-Galad as they did not relate to the character in question but to game events. That would leave Elrond and Oropher on five votes each and lead to a double eviction. Possibly a fair result.

Or one might take a different approach. A phantom discounts TORE’s vote because it refers back to spawn’s reasoning. On that basis, the votes of Celuien and (particularly) lord of dor-lomin would also need to be discounted, leaving Elrond with four votes and Oropher with three, resulting in Elrond’s eviction.

You see the problem? Even with a vague indication that only Tolkien-based votes will count, the game is still riddled with grey areas. Too much scope for mod partiality and too little certainty to make the game enjoyable. As I have said, the way that this game has been played involves a fair bit of effort and it all seems rather pointless when that effort comes to nothing on the whim of the mod.

Perhaps then, having made thorough analysis of the whole "Tolkien criteria" issue, you will see why I wanted to keep whose votes were in and whose votes were out a secret?

Formendacil, you have said that you have not been rigging the votes. I fully accept that you did not act in bad faith. Nevertheless, the fact that you chose to count the votes for Khamul, even though this issue was raised (by me) during that day of voting, but discount certain votes for Elrond does not give me any comfort in this regard. Even though you may not have consciously have rigged it and thought that you were acting fairly, it is clear to me that there was a degree of partiality involved in the manner in which you exercised your discretion.

I don't deny there was a degree of partiality- I think I have admitted to that a long time ago. I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

As for you raising "the issue" on the day of Khamûl's eviction, I maybe should have cracked down then on non-eligible voting. In my mind, I didn't want to be overly dictatorial: in other words, I didn't want something overblown like this to occur. My original intention in stipulating Tolkien-based rationale for votes was to discourage one-liner posts. Therefore, I didn't want to be putting the Mod's boot down on the necks of the players so eagerly. I wanted, rightly or wrongly, to wait a couple days and see if a trend towards greater post length/reasoning developed.

It didn't...

That I chose yesterDay to put my foot down was, I thought, a somewhat politically astute choice. Neither the Elrond party nor the Oropher party was winning by a landside (one vote's difference, I believe). Nor did I REALLY care to save either character, so I hoped to avoid accusations of bias. I PREFERRED Elrond, but not with the passionate drive of the Phantom.

In past games, the rule, I believe, has been, not that Tolkien-based reasoning was required, but that reasoning of some kind at least was required. In other words, votes for a character without more were not allowed. That works well, because it forces people to give some sort of reasoning (and therefore provokes discussion), but does not require value judgments on the part of the mod. In other words, it avoids the grey areas that my analysis above has highlighted and is easily enforceable in a non-partial way. Applying that rule, all of the votes yesterday, for both Elrond and Oropher, should have counted.

Alas, but perhaps I was doomed to problems in this field... When I say "Tolkien-based criteria", what I MEAN is "rational reasons", and since all of these characters come, in their entirety, from Tolkien, the word Tolkien has been used. It is perhaps not the wisest choice of words on my part, but I don't think that I've been unreasonable in expecting them to interpreted as intended. Show me where Elrond, Oropher, Khamûl, or any other is shown to us by anyone other than Tolkien (or Tolkien Jr.) and I'll gladly rescind the rule.

I don’t expect any response to this, nor any concessions. I just wished to make my position crystal clear before politely withdrawing from the game.

It was fun while it lasted.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. You have been, and I wish you could continue to be, one of the more entertaining players: you get drawn into the alliances, but you avoid getting entrenched too deep in them, as some do. You have always included a rationale for your votes. You are erudite and witty, and you have the value-adding gift to this game of inspiring grudges and revenge among those less fortunate.

If however, you feel that this game is rigged, unfair, and unjust, or that there is too much bad blood here to continue, then yes, you ought to leave. No sense in prolonging this pained situation longer...

And, regarding prolonging this pained situation, is there even a consensus that I should bother trying to keep running this game?

I don't want to step down. As Mod, I thought I had a pretty good game going. I was proud, in a parental way perhaps, of the alliances and petty grudges the players had developed. I thought I had put a pretty good cast of characters together, and that I doing a good, clean job of keeping my Moderator's Nose clean and unbiased.

I have been more than a little offended by the accusations against me, and although I don't bear any one particular 'Downer, or even a particular four or five 'Downers any ill will outside of this thread, I am irked at how large an issue this has grown into.

I remain,

~Michael A. Joosten - Survivor: The Second Age Moderator~

P.S. Analysis of votes coming up in the next post, to be followed by the official Day End. Any votes cast after this post will be counted towards tomorrow's tally.