From the rules:
Quote:
|
4. You can vote for yourself, but we'd rather you didn't. If you are going to vote for yourself, you must vote for someone else as your second choice.
|
This will be changed to reflect the increase in voting but basically, if you really want to vote for yourself, you *must* at least vote for one other person.
Now, about morals and ethics. Here's mine: Voting for yourself says that out of all the possible entries, you thought yours was better than everyone else's....in which case why did you bother even entering? If you know your work was better, then you should let your peers decide. You already cast your "vote" when you entered the contest. Now you need to let the public decide if they agree with you.
Now, I could have just said no voting for yourself. But, I didn't. The reason I left it open is because I know most people won't vote for themselves, but some will, and with the clause that they vote for at least one other person at least their potential voting won't go entirely to waste.
@Sephi - actually, I agree with you. The idea of the nomination phase is just an attempt to spur discussion into making the voting process easier for everyone involved, to get ideas rolling. Right now, it's a pointless measure simply because manual counting means extra effort twice instead of once if we added it.