Don't avoid my points. You don't know what I do and don't like, you can't simplify things like that, there is much more to it.
This may have started out like that, but I am genuinely trying to talk about something here. Why do you think there are arguments that I have read in the past few pages? Because I think you guys are seriously doing something wrong. wtf is this voting business? If this is voting, it's more like a ****ing election than a pr, call it an election.
It boggles my mind, seriously. The way you guys are talking about this, it really doesn't make much sense.
Explain this stuff.
Yeah I don't really care about this anyway, I am more interested in the process you guys are using.
I'm not really avoiding anything, I've gone into detailed discussion about what the process is before quite extensively. So here we go again... basically.....
Panelists analyze tournament results, (who beats who and who's consistent), and contrasts that data with their opinion of the person's general skill level.
They then make a top 10 list, and submit it to me. I then take everyone's lists, and put all the numbers/votes/placings (whatever you want to call them) together into one list.
In the original version after this point I got all the panelists together to discuss that list and state a case for any last minute changes. Even though none of the panelists discussed placement of people beforehand, all of the lists were incredibly similiar, and nobody had any real concerns or disagreements.
In this update I was not able to get everyone together (couldn't find everyone online at the same time) after putting the numbers together and making the final change. So I made the change purely on the numbers.
I hope that clears up any concerns or misconceptions you had.