So after voting in the pageant for a couple weeks now, I'm starting to think about the format more and more, and I think that the format could use a little work. Currently, the pool that you are voting on also includes your wolf – meaning that you're voting for your direct competition. There is actual incentive to vote not for the wolf you think is best or prettiest, but that you think is least likely to win in hopes of raising your own chances (bad/uncoordinated colours, lack of CA, etc.). The only thing preventing that is an honour system, but well – that's not exactly the best system. Additionally, by the end of the week, even though I'm only voting honestly for wolves I like, I have often ‘run out’ of wolves to pick – which again, further incentivizes me to pick wolves I think won't win to try and raise my own chances.

My suggestion to change the format is two part. The first is to not vote on the ‘pool’ that your wolf is in at all, making it fairer and less potentially incentivized to ‘throw’ votes in hopes of winning. The second is to rotate the pools a couple times in the week so that voters are less likely to ‘run out’ of wolves they like to vote for.

Given that we have 6 days of voting, I suggest either 2 or 3 days between rotations. So for example--

3 day rotation:

Day 1: Enter wolf (entered into Pool A for the purpose of example)

Day 2: Vote in Pool B

Day 3: Vote in Pool B

Day 4: Vote in Pool B

Day 5: Vote in Pool C

Day 6: Vote in Pool C

Day 7: Vote in Pool C

3 day rotation:

Day 1: Enter wolf (entered into Pool A for the purpose of example)

Day 2: Vote in Pool B

Day 3: Vote in Pool B

Day 4: Vote in Pool C

Day 5: Vote in Pool C

Day 6: Vote in Pool D

Day 7: Vote in Pool D

I think a 3 day rotation works best to make sure there's 4 placing winners, whereas with only a 2-day there's a slim possibility that only 2-3 wolves would receive votes. (Technically possible on a 3-day rotation, but highly highly unlikely). That would solve the problems of “strategic” voting, as well as ensuring a person is much less likely to run out of wolves they want to vote for.

An additional bonus of having a rotated voting pool means getting to see lots more cool wolves, so, hey, bonus!

Much support to this suggestion, in interest of fairness :D
It's definitely much easier for players to vote fair for the wolves they truly like when their own candidates are non participants in the voting pool, and I adore the idea of seeing new faces and bonus wolves instead of the exact same batch from Day 2 to Day 7 <3

I'm not against this! I never thought about it this way since I actively go out of my way to vote wolves who I think wouldn't win, just to make sure everyone gets at least one vote since Pageant is extremely pay-to-win right now. This wouldn't help that issue, but it would help another.

Big support.

this is great. for what it's worth, the pageant strat in EA was to vote for wolves you didn't think would win lol. i think this suggestion is a great way to balance it, support!

Support!

Yep this would be a great idea! With moonstones and rare apparel in the line, there is indeed much incentive to either vote for the ones you think will definitely not win, or not vote at all. And I would like to vote without factoring in my own competition ^^; so it would be great to never vote in our own pool.

After again seeing a week where myself and my friends saw multiple really beautiful, coordinated wolves (both CA and without) not even place (vs wolves with just 1-2 site apparels slapped on, or even naked), it feels like more and more people are voting for strategy over looks. And it feels like that's only going to get worse over time to where it will become just a mind game of “how do I vote for the least likely wolf?"

“After again seeing a week where myself and my friends saw multiple really beautiful, coordinated wolves (both CA and without) not even place (vs wolves with just 1-2 site apparels slapped on, or even naked)”

Are you saying that Naked wolves can't be pretty enough to win? Against Wolves who have CA.

Depending on circumstances, potentially yes. For me, I judge on two factors – effort and successful coordination. Someone who's slapped in a naked WW has much lower points in effort, but may make up points in coordination. Someone with a bunch of apparel that goes with each other probably succeeds in effort, and points in coordination vary depending on how well I subjectively feel that they pulled it off.

Disclaimer: Personal Opinion ahead, do not read as fact. (Roughly in descending priority order)

1. For me, the ultimate success is a person who has taken pieces of CA from different artists (that were thus presumably not designed to specifically go together) and combined them in a way that makes sense and looks cohesive. Extra bonus points for working in site apparel well. The reason this is highest is because it can potentially be very difficult to work in differing art styles and overlapping layering, and so when done well, I strongly respect it.
2. If a wolf has multiple pieces of coordinated apparel (regardless of price), that's a clear winner in my books. Again, respect for people who coordinate things well and put in the effort and attention to detail to make sure layering works well.
3. If a wolf is a progen and has clearly had care put into selecting colours that go well together, again, pretty good in my books.
4. If a wolf is a WW with coordinated colours, that's mostly RNG, but hey, it can still look great and the care in selecting it counts for something.
5. If a wolf is a G2+ with coordinated colours, sure, I can get on board with that. Again, the care in selecting it counts for something, even if it's much easier to just pick a random wolf off the market and have it be likely to be coordinated.
6. If a wolf is a WW with RNG colours or ‘sore thumb’ colours on otherwise coordinated appearances, I'm less inclined to like it.
7. If a wolf is G2+ and looks like it got spit out of a randomizer, there's basically zero chance I consider it worth winning.

So for example of things that really work as excellence, this wolf (not mine to avoid bias) has a CA (Aurelian Noble) that works really well with a piece of site apparel (Courageous Chiton) to make them look like they belong together perfectly. It has a few more additional pieces that all work together well without being jarring. It also does a good job of layering apparel well in a way that nothing looks jarringly weird. It also coordinates accent colours well – the green touches on the accent go really nicely with the Rosemary Brush Accent colour that I would have otherwise felt very out of place on the wolf in question. It combines so many factors into looking extremely coordinated and cohesive, and as a whole, the wolf has very clear attention, love, and care put into it. It's a perfect example of excellence, and it deserved to win (which it did).

Another example of a well-dressed and coordinated wolf on a stricter budget is this wolf. It doesn't have any CAs, and the apparel budget is quite affordable, but it's still well-coordinated and shows care and effort put in to selecting suitable pieces of apparel. I consider this very much more deserving of a win than submitting a wolf without the same care and effort put in.

I'm not going to link examples of less-fitting wolves because I don't feel that's appropriate, but I do feel that wolves like the above are simply more deserving to win given the effort and care put into them when compared to a naked wolf 10 times out of 10, yes. (Less coordinated and successful dressings, it's less clear-cut, but when someone both puts in the effort and it turns out well, I feel that should be rewarded more than just RNG.)

Bumping this because it's getting worse. And I am 100% guilty of voting for who I think won't win, because there is indeed the most incentive in spreading out the vote. As that idea gets around more, more people are doing the same. I think the results from my most recent pageant show this, with so many ties. I actually didn't win, so of course the strategy doesn't always work, but I really think it is essential now to not be voting within your own pool of competition.