I've missed out on this, as I've been proper busy and didn't realise the voting was going on, but there seems to be a major flaw in the voting. Surely if someone gives an average 50 for each category it just destroys the system? It's rather irritating reading that people are scoring people even though they admit they "they haven't seen them around". Surely an "N/A" would be better than destroying the score given by people who actually know the poster?
Take for instance Jaxley's decision:
No one is going to score highly here, usually arguments are just the stupid "
" then "WTF is your problem" thing.
And then he went on to score nobody higher than 60, while everyone else is voting on a proper scale of 1-100. I've seen a few people with suspiciously identical scores which makes me think people are copying other peoples scores when they don't know the person in question, too.
The humour score seems a bit off too, as people seem to have voted with the criteria "Do you have the same sense of humour as ME?" rather than simply "Do you have a sense of humour?".
I'm nagging, so I'll stop now.