Voting Round 2

[DannyelBrazil]

Congrats, Atlanta.

Agreed.

This vote was a farce.

Any problems Michelle?

[Sir Rols]

Congratulations Atlanta - great bid (as they all were).

And a huge vote by comp standards here. Though I'm not a fan of the poll voting - too easy to manipulate. Still, good job Lord David - organising these comps can be a thankless task at times. But you brought some goos structure to it, and showed you can be flexible too.

[Michelle]

Congratulations Atlanta - great bid (as they all were).

And a huge vote by comp standards here. Though I'm not a fan of the poll voting - too easy to manipulate. Still, good job Lord David - organising these comps can be a thankless task at times. But you brought some goos structure to it, and showed you can be flexible too.

Would be better if established members only could vote (say, posters with 500+ posts to their name), with them posting their preferred city... it would make the result more legitimate and transparent.

Fake accounts can be set up, too easily. I'm confident to say that if we had done it the way I suggested, we'd be seeing a very different result.

Congrats, Atlanta.

Any problems Michelle?

Too many to list

[Sir Rols]

Not a bad idea, but 500+ might be a bit limiting, and disenfranchise a lot of the keen newer (real) members. In the past, I remember, what seemed to work best was posted votes, for all to see, with a cut-off date, usually just before the competition, for when account votes would be countd as valid. Even then, of course, you'd still see votes from old member accounts who'd never appear at any other time.

[wingspread]

The personal photograph at the end of every post by the Atlanta bid team was enough to make me vote against Atlanta. It's a ploy, like JAS saying "I'm not long for this world, vote for Madrid".

Whoever that is, he's the reason I voted for Atlanta. Hah.

[DannyelBrazil]

Would be better if established members only could vote (say, posters with 500+ posts to their name), with them posting their preferred city... it would make the result more legitimate and transparent.

It`s a good proposal. I`ve already talked about this here. It`s impossible to control fake users and the final results are not exactly the will of serious members. Once more... The bad behaviour always wins here.

[OneTimeOnly]

Whoever that is, he's the reason I voted for Atlanta. Hah.

See? It was a total ploy and it worked - on you.

[baron-pierreIV]

See? It was a total ploy and it worked - on you.

Well, OTO, obviously it worked on enough of a winning margin. And scotguy will certainly get more votes than that pruned up old JAS.

[OneTimeOnly]

Well, OTO, obviously it worked on enough of a winning margin. And scotguy will certainly get more votes than that pruned up old JAS.

Yeah, obviously. That's why I said it was a ploy, all along. Really pathetic one too.

[Scotguy]

Yeah, obviously. That's why I said it was a ploy, all along. Really pathetic one too.

Get lost

Didn't see you make an effort to take part in the competition

[OneTimeOnly]

You know it's true. It was a pathetic attempt to play to the sizable gay male contingent in this forums. Don't play stupid.

[Sir Rols]

Isn't that like real life anyway. As long as the fantasy bid is sound enough, it's all down to the lobbying, marketing, friendships and geographic appeal of the bidders? It's far closer to the real IOC process than just voting on technical bids (and, anyway, these are fantasy bids. We can make any bid technically perfect if we're playing fantasy games). Some of the best and most exhilarating fun I've had on Gamesbids was the campaigning and lobbying and arm-twisting and dealing in past bid contests where I've entered. Scotguy just campaigned like we used to in those.

[Scotguy]

HIghlights from Atlanta's victory celebrations: