Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin65
It does not matter to me one way or the other but I am with stirCrazy on this one. To change the rules half way though is not ethical.
|
Yeah if everybody broke the rules all the time things would be a mess... but you can't claim that any rule change is always unethical?? If so I think my buddy Josh would be a little upset that he has to ride at the back of the bus. If the foundation of something is less than ideal from the start then a change is required and that shouldn't really be a problem as long as it follows the correct "Management of Change Process."
And in this case it is apparent that a majority of the contestants would agree that a change is required... I guess if we wanted to be more fair we could add up all of the 0's, 50's, 100's, 150's and divide the total by the number of contestants so that everyone's vote influences the actual number increase, so even though a contestant may lose to the majority they can still bring the average down oppose to being a losing majority with no actual influence on the outcome.
If we do it like that it'll kinda be like government elections... you lost on the whole but hey you still get a few seats in parliament ahah
Might be a little more representative of the true situation?
Which would mean a $95 increase given the current votes at the time of this post if my calculations are correct.