Krakow One Challenge - vote here

[Maarten van Druten]

Great photos!

3 points for 8 Points of View
2 points for 10 For Whom The Bell Tolls
1 point for 5 Fortune Teller

Best gerards,

Maarten

[cbretteville]

1st: #8
2nd: #12
3rd: #7

Cheers,
- Carl

[fotografr]

1. # 11

2. # 5

3. # 10

[jc_braconi]

1st # 1
2nd # 5
3rd # 7

[man:men]

1st is No. 8
2nd is No. 5
3rd is No.1

regards
manfred

[tolled]

And here are the results from the Hamburg jury:

1st place : 2 Untitled

2nd place: 10 For Whom The Bell Tolls

3rd place: -

(same like s.m.e.p)

[s.m.e.p.]

Originally Posted by tolled

(same like s.m.e.p)

[andybarton]

If this were the LA version, neither of your votes would count...

[yenlai]

1st Place: #8

[andybarton]

The idea is that you vote for your top 3 entries.

If you don't want to vote for 3, please make this very clear, although this is not in the spirit of the Challenge. Please read the first post in this thread.

[octo]

Originally Posted by andybarton

The idea is that you vote for your top 3 entries.

If you don't want to vote for 3, please make this very clear, although this is not in the spirit of the Challenge. Please read the first post in this thread.

Andy,

Andy,
I neither mean nor want to tread on any toes here, but my understanding was that, to be valid, votes shoud show 3 pictures, no more, no less.

[andybarton]

Indeed. It is obvious that I didn't make this clear enough in my original post on this thread, for which I profoundly apologise.

I have asked Bill Palmer, whose idea this was in the first place, to adjudicate. As he was unfortunate enough not to be able to join us this year, his independence can be assured.

Next year, we will make sure that it is absolutely obvious to all.

[andybarton]

I have had an email from Bill Palmer, who is currently on holiday on the top of Mount Olympus, or somewhere, and he has spake, in a voice both thunderous and yet benevolent...

"Fewer than three votes is a spoiled ballot, and should be discounted"

Seeing as it's Bill's game, I will discount all three responses, where fewer than three photographs have been voted for.

Hope this is clear.

[robert_parker]

Originally Posted by andybarton

I have had an email from Bill Palmer, who is currently on holiday on the top of Mount Olympus, or somewhere, and he has spake, in a voice both thunderous and yet benevolent...

"Fewer than three votes is a spoiled ballot, and should be discounted"

Seeing as it's Bill's game, I will discount all three responses, where fewer than three photographs have been voted for.

Hope this is clear.

One suggestion to make would be that Bill's ruling should apply for all new votes - the existing ones have been cast in good faith by the voters, who may not get the opportunity to correct the position and the rules have been changed (or clarified) after the votes have been cast. Please note the comment is made in the interst of overall fairness, as the votes appear to have been sincere - also I derive no personal benfit from the suggestion, as they ain't voted for me anyway....

[ejd]

1st place -- no 5, fortune teller
2nd place -- no 8, points of view
3rd place -- no 1, clash of civilizations

All very enjoyable. Wish I'd been able to be there myself. Next year!

[spylaw4]

Originally Posted by andybarton

I have had an email from Bill Palmer, who is currently on holiday on the top of Mount Olympus, or somewhere, and he has spake, in a voice both thunderous and yet benevolent...

"Fewer than three votes is a spoiled ballot, and should be discounted"

Seeing as it's Bill's game, I will discount all three responses, where fewer than three photographs have been voted for.

Hope this is clear.

I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that there are four responses in that position.

[andybarton]

Quite right Brian. I hadn't updated my Spreadsheet when I wrote that response.

[robert_parker]

As said above, it would be unlucky if someone looses by one vote, due to an existing submission being rescinded

[robert_parker]

I'll just make the point a little more robustly, then shut up.

1) I don't dispute the right of Bill to amend or clarify the intention behind the challenge rules and I'm unaffected by the change and hope that I'm therefore unbiased.

2) The original rules IMHO do not make it clear that the posting of three votes is mandatory

3) Previous challenges have allowed the style of the casting of single or partial votes

4) and a change is being brought about part way through an existing ballot, which may prove unfair to one or more members in the event of a close vote for the winning, runner up and third places

Could I suggest that if it is to be mandatory to cast three votes, (rather than allowing the expression of what may be a personal opinion that only one vote is merited, or an inclination, albeit perverse, to only vote once), then this ruling should apply to votes cast after post number 53 in which the change was announced and the 'part voters' be pm'd to allow them the opportunity to amend their ballot to the 1st 2nd and 3rd style.

I would however strongly suggent that if any of these 'partial voters' either are unable to respond, or choose not to amend thier ballot, that their original vote should stand, as it appears to have been cast fairly and properly.

[underground]

Oh My God!