Totallympics International Song Contest Discussion

[dezbee2008 809]

1. I would do option A for the top 5, and then do an open bid.

2. Option C, though I would be okay with B

3. A, because I would want participants to be registered for a specified amount of time before they can take part. And maybe this would help once the contest goes into the voting round.

[uk12points 434]

A

B

A

[dcro 10,179]

B

A

B

[OlympicIRL 4,769]

Okay, so i have counted the results and drawn up my findings. Question 1 needed a lot of consideration as a lot of users who voted for option (b) did so by making statements like "but only after top 3 decline rights", or top 5. And likewise, some who voted for Option (a), while wanting the ranking to be the preferred method, wanted it only to be used to an extent (top 3, top 5, etc.) before moving to open bidding.

So it's clear that a combination of the two options is the desired majority wish.

The other two questions are more straight-forward and I hope to put forward a fair solution to finding the right balance between giving first-time bidders an advantage and allowing everyone to bid.

Will hopefully be back within the hour with the results and the proposed outcomes

Edited January 13, 2019 by OlympicIRL

[DaniSRB 896]

How about to have 3rd song contest but to be themed song contest? For example song from 60s, sports song, folk song, songs from movies/series etc. It doesn't have to be big as previous two and maybe to end in like 2 weeks so only very interested would participate

[Werloc 3,127]

Nah, I fully support the choice of having only two yearly contests, let's preserve the magic. Quality not quantity.

[OlympicIRL 4,769]

17 minutes ago, DaniSRB said:

How about to have 3rd song contest but to be themed song contest? For example song from 60s, sports song, folk song, songs from movies/series etc. It doesn't have to be big as previous two and maybe to end in like 2 weeks so only very interested would participate

 

Sure, we can talk about that and even put it to a vote. I do think if it is to be considered though that it should be a short version that is not as prolonged. The biggest issue I see with it is overlapping.... for example, a song from the 60s contest.... but then can those songs be entered in the main TISC Open edition also?

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by OlympicIRL

[OlympicIRL 4,769]

Be prepared people, there will be a supplementary question coming from the results from Question 1. It seems users want a combination of options a and b but I will make a rule proposal and let you all decide for yourselves.

[OlympicIRL 4,769]

Totallympics International Song Contest: Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

The deadline for taking part in the TISC Questionnaire has now passed. I want to thank every user who has taken the time to contribute to the survey and for expressing their views.

So let's take a look at the results of the survey and the implications thereof:

 

 

********************

 

The first question asked users about which was their preferred method of awarding hosting rights on occasions where the winner declines the hosting duties. Let us take a look at the question that was put to TISC member as well as the number of respondents who votes for each option:

 

 

 

Question 1:

How should TISC hosting rights be awarded if the winner declines their right to host the next edition?

(a) Awarded via ranking, with the next highest finisher being awarded the hosting rights

(b) Open bid process where all interested parties can bid

 

Result:

Option (a) received 6 votes

Option (b) received 7 votes

 

Additional Comments that users attached to their votes:

Option (a) but ask top 5 or top 10, take into consideration if hosted already

Option (a) but move to Open bidding after all top 3 have declined

Option (a) allow top 5 to decline before going to open bid

Option (b) but only after top 3 have declined

Option (b) mostly b but agree that top 3 should have to decline first

Option (b) unless the runner-up wants to host

 

 

Outcome and Findings:

6 voters voted for option (a) and 7 voters voted for option (b).

However, we need to drill into the votes in order to find the true reflection of the opinions expressed by users.

3 users who voted option (b) stated they would like the runner up or top x nations to have the opportunity to accept or decline the hosting rights before moving to the open bidding. So in effect, they are expressing that they would like to have option (a) until x point where it moves to option (b) and an open bid process.

Similarly, 3 users who voted option (a) stated they wished to move on to the open bidding process after top 3, top 5 or top 10 have declined.

So it is clear that the preferred majority is to use a combination of the methods, beginning with awarding the rights to the highest ranked finishers until a certain point (top 3 seems to be mentioned the most) before moving to an open bid process if all decline. However, as always, in interest of fairness I am going to ask a supplementary question to confirm that this is the preferred method. This question will be published following this survey (probably tomorrow) but here is a preview of the proposed changes to Rule 9 (b) and Rule (c) that users will be asked to vote on:

 

 

SECTION 9 - FUTURE HOSTING RIGHTS:

 

9. (a) Upon completion of the relevant song contest, the winning nation will automatically be awarded the rights to host the subsequent Totallympics International Song Contest 1 year later.

 

9. (b) If the winning nation wishes to decline the hosting duties, the runner-up of that edition will then be awarded the opportunity to accept or decline the hosting rights. If the runner-up also declines the hosting duties, the 3rd placed nation of that edition will have the opportunity to accept or decline the hosting rights.

 

9. (c) In the event that the hosting rights are declined by the top 3 ranked nations at the previous edition of the relevant TISC, an open bid process will be conducted in order to award the hosting rights.

 

 

 

 

********************

 

The second question asked users how they wish the open bidding process to work and whether there should be priority given to first-time hosts or equal chances for all. Let's take a look at the question and the results of the vote:

 

 

 

Question 2:

If there is an open bid process, how would you rather it be conducted?

(a) First-time hosts given priority

(b) First-time hosts and previous hosts allowed to bid, but the draw will be weighted in favour of first-time hosts

(c) Completely open bidding, no priority given to any candidate and all are given equal chance

(d) I don't like any of these options

 

Result:

Option (b) received 6 votes

Option (c) received 4 votes

Option (a) received 3 votes

Option (d) received 0 votes

 

Additional Comments that users attached to their votes:

(b) Non-winners who hosted before should have a cooling period before being allowed to bid again

(b) first-time winners having slight advantage

(c) but would be okay with option (b)

 

Outcome:

The majority of voters have expressed their wish to have an open bidding process, open to both first-time hosts and previous hosts, but with the caveat that the process is weighted in favour of first-time hosts. As this is the preferred option, I propose that we write in rule 9 (d) into the TISC rulebook to deal with how we conduct any future bidding contests that are opened after hosting rights are declined. Users will be asked to vote on the new rule change to determine if they agree or disagree.

 

Rule 9 (d):

9 (d) In the event that the top 3 nations of the previous TISC edition all decline hosting rights, an open bidding process will be commenced in order to award the hosting rights.

The process will be open to all candidates, first-time hosts as well as previous hosts.

A random draw will take place with each candidate being awarded a number of tickets in the draw. The more tickets a candidate has entered, the better their chance of being selected as host. Here is the process for how the tickets will be distributed:

 

 

Each candidate automatically awarded 1 ticket each in the draw. However, additional tickets awarded as follows

- did not host in the previous 5 editions (+1 additional ticket)

- did not host in the previous 10 editions (+1 additional ticket)

- did not host previously (+2 additional tickets)

- took part in the previous bidding process (+1 additional ticket). For first-time hosts, they will add an additional ticket for each edition they are unsuccessful for in bidding, thus increasing their chance slightly with each unsuccessful bid. This increase will only be available for first-time hosts. Additionally, if a first-time host missed 2 consecutive bidding campaigns, then their tickets no longer carry forward and they lose those additional tickets.

 

Therefore, a quick guideline to show you how that rule might work and how it has different levels of favourability to take into account if a candidate has hosted before and how often they were unsuccessful in bidding:

 

• a first-time host who previously took part in the previous bidding process would have 6 tickets in the draw.
• a first-time host who did not take part in the previous bidding process would have 5 tickets in the draw.
• A previous host who took part in the previous bidding process and has not hosted in over 10 editions would have 4 tickets in the draw.
• A previous host who did not take part in the previous bidding process and has hosted one of the previous 5 editions would have 1 ticket in the draw.

 

 

 

 

********************

 

The third and final question was in relation to Rule 7 (a) which deals with first-time participants.

Let's remind ourselves of the question that was asked to users and look at the results:

 

 

Question 3:

Rule 7 (a) in the TISC rulebook:

Quote

7. (a) Any first time participant must have been registered on the forum at least 2 months before they take part in the contest. The date used to calculate the 2 months rule will be 2 months prior to the National Selection deadline. A first time participant may be allowed special dispensation to participate in TISC, even if they do not fulfill the 2-month rule criteria. However, in such circumstances, that user must have shown a high level of activity in the forum in terms of posts and presence.

These rules are not designed to exclude, only to ensure TISC retains a distinct character, built upon a unique community atmosphere created by users of the forum.

 

Do you want this rule to be:

(a) unchanged, maintain the rule as it is

(b) modified so that there is still some restriction, but want changes to the terms of this restriction

(c) scrapped, get rid of this rule completely

 

 

Result:

Option (a) received 7.5 votes

Option (b) received 5.5 votes

Option (c) received 0 votes

 

Additional Comments that users attached to their votes:

Option (a) but just specify who decides about whether to give special dispensation

Option (a) and (b) are both fine (hence the 0.5 split between options (a) and (b) in the results)

Option (b) but just specify who decides about whether to give special dispensation

Option (b) but change the rule to 1 month

 

 

 

Outcome:

This was a straight-forward result, the rule will stand as it is. However, I will take onboard the suggestions by some users who want it to be made clear who will award the special dispensation to participate for any user who does not meet the criteria. This will be written into the rule in the next edition of the contest.

 

 

********************

 

Take time to read through the results and the proposed rule changes. If you have any concerns or additional comments regarding any of the proposals, please don't hesitate to express your opinion - this is how we make the contest better, by discussing and evolving processes to make them work better and more effectively.

As already explained, we need an additional question to find the solution that most fairly reflects the wish of users. I will publish that tomorrow evening.

 

Again, I want to thank everyone for participating in the Questionnaire. It was a very useful process and hopefully this will help make things run more smoothly in future.

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by OlympicIRL

[OlympicIRL 4,769]

Tomorrow I will ask supplementary questions to determine if users agree with the proposed rule changes 9 (b) (c) and (d).

I know it might seem prolonged but got to get these things right in order to pin these issues down and make sure that a majority agrees.

Edited January 13, 2019 by OlympicIRL