No such restriction was put on the voters. Only 16 of the 22 voters voted for themselves in either of the two groups even though they were well aware they could do so and that the specific details of their voting was and is completely confidential. One of the top 10 placed players didn't vote for themself. I was very impressed by the diligence, fairness and integrity displayed by the voters, though I didn't say this during the process for fear of it causing any influence.
With regard to the voting system, the main objective was to be able to identify the top 10 players with good definition, and hopefully the places 11 to 15 too. The attached chart shows graphically distribution of the scores. I think it can be seen that the objectives were met nicely. Places 16-20 start to become a little unreliable, and beyond 20 there is little definition at all. To achieve a system capable of defining say 50 places with reliability there would need to be more divisions (perhaps 4 or 5 divisions), and perhaps more voters.
