2006 Favourite deck votes

Alta

Some thoughts on this. The poll actually said 'favourite', not 'best'.

As for 'what is the point?' no more than say any awards programs. What is best OR favourite?

Personally I don't see what having so many categories would prove. That 10 decks are published in the list likely pulls out the 10 favs, for whatever reasons.

Also, you don't have to be a member of the Forums to vote. Anyone viewing the main site can vote, so that does weaken the idea that the Forum discussions themselves skew the voting.
 

Papageno

Nina* said:
:D I'd like that!

I'm still not sure we agree though (not that we have to, of course ;) ); I actually think, if you should vote for the RWS *together* with all it's clones it wouldn't necessarily win, because then there's yet another fancy new deck on the market which will get the votes... I think it should be voted for together with the other classics.

that kind of makes things difficult because what determines "classic"?

for instance, the Lasenic Tarot (Vladislav Kuzel) is closely related iconographically to the Waite system, it's considered a "variant" but it was published at around the same time.

the only way around that problem would be to have a completely seperate category for the "classics". but it would be a small category and then you would have a HUGE fuss over the time line. what is the publication cut off point for a deck to be considered a classic.
 

Nina*

Marion said:
Also, you don't have to be a member of the Forums to vote. Anyone viewing the main site can vote, so that does weaken the idea that the Forum discussions themselves skew the voting.
It would really amaze me if lots of people found this forum, voted for the best/favorite deck.... and left. I'd think most of the votes came from members or people regularly visiting here.

Well, I could be wrong. :)
 

Little Baron

Marion said:
Some thoughts on this. The poll actually said 'favourite', not 'best'.

As for 'what is the point?' no more than say any awards programs. What is best OR favourite?

Personally I don't see what having so many categories would prove. That 10 decks are published in the list likely pulls out the 10 favs, for whatever reasons.

Also, you don't have to be a member of the Forums to vote. Anyone viewing the main site can vote, so that does weaken the idea that the Forum discussions themselves skew the voting.

Cheers Marion. I don't know where I [or anyone else] got the word 'best' from, but that word has influenced the posts that I have written.

'Favourite' is a different thing all together. And I can appreciate that decks of all calibers may arise in a poll which is geared to just personal taste and a favourite 'flavour' of the moment in question.

But, oh no!!!!! I have voted already!!!

If I had read that question properly, I might have voted differently!

Off to see if Solandia will let me change my vote to the 'Tarot of the Ceremonial Armpits'.

*trots off*

LB
 

cirom

LittleBuddha said:
Think about music. Razorlight may be your favourite new band. Lily Allen, your favourite singer in popular music. Yep. They have both made an impression in the last few years. But would you give them a lifetime achievement award for their contribution to the music industry? I doubt it. LB

I understand your music awards analogy perfectly. You're right I would'nt give them a lifetime achievement if thats what I was being asked to do. For that award I would certainly give it to say the Beatles etc, as was your point. But that does'nt preclude them of some consideration surely, even if its the lesser and temporary categories of your music awards analogy of "my CURRENT favourite published DURING this year", and my CURRENT all time favourite for THIS year. Because to do so would mean that numerous decks would be disqualified by their age alone.
Your scale of longevity and worthyness is five years which seems quite reasonable to me in some contexts, but I imagine others would be more demanding and require an even longer period as a necessary test of time. Extrapolate that further and you end up with the Marseilles, RWS and Thoth as the only obviouse candidates to choose from. Your music awards would be somewhat predictable, much like a communist election. But arguably and in the minds of many those are the only three that count so maybe it does'nt matter anyway. I just find limitation of choice to be an questionable condition its sort of 'Tarot Taliban'.
I think you're right though in that many current favourites are temporary fads that will fade into obscurity. Mine included. One because they simply may not have what it takes but also any deck in your less than five year time scale has to make it in the face of competition of thousands of others. Something the classics did'nt have to consider.

I would'nt want to suggest doing so now as it would conflict with this annual official aeclectic poll. But it would be interesteing to get a more detailed consensus by allowing feedback (votes) based on various criterea. So that different decks can be more comprehensively evaluated rather than being compared in over generalized categories. After all comparing Razorlight to the Beatles is equally unfair to both parties.
By the way I'm far too old to appreciate Razorlight, but I did download one of their songs on iTunes :)
 

Nina*

trismegistus said:
that kind of makes things difficult because what determines "classic"?

for instance, the Lasenic Tarot (Vladislav Kuzel) is closely related iconographically to the Waite system, it's considered a "variant" but it was published at around the same time.

the only way around that problem would be to have a completely seperate category for the "classics". but it would be a small category and then you would have a HUGE fuss over the time line. what is the publication cut off point for a deck to be considered a classic.
Mmm... you're right.
I didn't think it would be easy. Hmm.. maybe then we could vote for decks from before and after 1970 or something like that.
 

Little Baron

I understand Ciro. I would have considered longer than five years [maybe double that], but as you say, a huge chunk of what is avaible has only come through in the last decade, so it would leave us with just the key players, so to speak. And as much as they are worthy of the recognistion for starting a certain tradition, it also becomes a little boring. In England [not that I watch it], we have shows that give awards to tv programmes - voted by the good old general public. Each year, there is a catorgary for 'Favourite Soap'. There are two shows that go head to head. One year, one of them wins. The next, it is the other. In recent years, there have been newer 'soaps', battling for this award alongside the two front runners. But they never really get a look in. You always know they won't. In most cases, they have not broken that 'period of service' that we talk about. As much as I don't see them to have the same superiority, many people do enjoy them, and on the whole, the award show is dull because the outcome is always a foregone conclusion.

And our award here is a little like that, I suppose, if we gave it that kind of discipline and ways of tightening the question.

As much as this is an interesting topic of conversation, it is also one that is difficult to answer because there are so many different factors involved.

And I think that the Gilded will probably a last for many years yet, since it is still regularly mentioned here, amongst enthusiasts and serious readers. Like the Prague and the Druidcraft, it has faced and jumped it's initial hurdles. It is no longer the new kid on the block. And as with all these packs, it will be interesting to see how it faces maturity and whether readers want to mature with it. The 'tribe' is one I am personally enjoying, but peoples interest in it has faded as time has gone on. One that was once discussed a great deal, is hardly seen in threads here much [until I started posting again, recently, anyway].

LB
 

Little Baron

But there are flaws in saying 'decks before 1970'. As much as I think decks should stand the test of time, there would also be decks that would fall into that catorgary JUST BECAUSE they are before 1970 ... not because they are any good. They might be elevated to the status of 'classic', just because of their age.

LB

Edited to add: This thread is getting confusing. I am not sure what my opinion is anymore :D

Edited to add further: I think I have learned that maybe it doesn't really matter which wins and which you use, hehe. I would rather read individual posts, to be honest - where I could see what everyone voted for in different catorgaries and for what reason.
 

Nina*

LittleBuddha said:
But there are flaws in saying 'decks before 1970'. As much as I think decks should stand the test of time, there would also be decks that would fall into that catorgary JUST BECAUSE they are before 1970 ... not because they are any good. They might be elevated to the status of 'classic', just because of their age.
Sure... and then they wouldn't win, would they? ;) Which is as it should be. The point is that most clones are made after that year and voting like that would then be most fair to both clones and for instance RWS.

Edited to add: This thread is getting confusing. I am not sure what my opinion is anymore :D
I agree :D
 

Little Baron

Yes, I agree. That would be like voting between Elvis and one of forty Elvis-impersonators.

LB