Seems a bit much to turn a vote down just because they haven't posted 100 times. If a member discovers these tournaments for the first time as a new member it seems a bit unfair not no include them.
We should be encouraging members to these threads, not turning them away because they don't qualify.
jamescarpon57 has made 2 votes and both in this thread. If it were me in his position I would be a bit annoyed if my first 2 posts on Freeones, and in this thread especially, didn't count towards anything. It is a bit of a negative way for new members IMO.
I think we should really be giving new members with sub-100 posts a positive and welcoming feeling and should be including them so they will return and take part more
I get the "100 post" rule for the Freeones forum as a whole though, but not in individual threads
Appreciate your viewpoint on this matter regarding voting eligibility.
So, you might ask... what's the origin of this exclusionary voting policy?
Well, way back in Season 1 of the tourney, there was a high-stakes match which ended in a tie.
The winner of this match would be named Bronze Medal recipient and become the final Hall of Fame inductee for the year.
Suspiciously, a 2 year member, unfamiliar to the panel, with no prior posts (0) , chose this consequential bout as apparently his very first Freeones post
to cast what potentially could've been the pivotal vote of a very important match.
From my perspective, it seemed a bit unfitting that at the end of a yearlong tournament, a first-time voter could come along out of the blue and be afforded
[without merit or history] such instantaneous voting power.
As a result, a policy was written and adopted soon after, specifically designed to prevent a repeat of such a scenario.
Any member who wishes to officially become a tournament judge, need simply to vote
consecutively in 6 or more ANSEPA matches (WCN or WCT),
or register 100 or more Freeones posts. I believe that's reasonable.
