Can someone give me a simple straightforward way (like drawing straws) to do this? Some items have much greater value than others, and if someone got that greater value item how would/could that affect their next straw draw to make it equitable?

Please give me some ideas- today, if possible. I thought a weighted average situation might work, but I’m not sure how to implement.
Thanks for your thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:
Can someone give me a simple straightforward way (like drawing straws) to do this? Some items have much greater value than others, and if someone got that greater value item how would/could that affect their next straw draw to make it equitable?

Please give me some ideas- today, if possible. I thought a weighted average situation might work, but I’m not sure how to implement.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Search value and have that value attached to the item. Have the three sit down with you and value the items. Maybe one person doesn’t care for let’s say for instance the salt shaker collection and one does. If no one wants the shaker collection then sell it and split the proceeds three ways.

Yes, thank you, we know the value of the items and certainly there are going to be things that we don’t want and they will be tagged and sold. I’m talking about items that we do want and how we equitably divide them - with some having much greater value than others.. trying to avoid potential conflict by being equally fair if we all want the same 10 things that vary greatly in value. So there’s no arguing, disputing, etc, or at least such that no one can say it wasn’t fairly distributed.

Seems like the “let’s pick teams for playground basketball.”

Assign a random order of selectors, maybe have selectors pick a number out of a hat… the person drawing the slip of paper with #1 printed on it gets first choice, #2 gets the second, #3 gets the third choice… and then the 4th choice… #2 gets the fifth choice and #1 gets the sixth… and so on.

That way, #3 doesn’t always get the least-valuable item left available in every round.

I don’t know if this solves your problem or not.

quote:

Originally posted by mttaylor1066:
Seems like the “let’s pick teams for playground basketball.”

Assign a random order of selectors, maybe have selectors pick a number out of a hat… the person drawing the slip of paper with #1 printed on it gets first choice, #2 gets the second, #3 gets the third choice… and then the 4th choice… #2 gets the fifth choice and #1 gets the sixth… and so on.

That way, #3 doesn’t always get the least-valuable item left available in every round.

I don’t know if this solves your problem or not.

It might. I’m trying to present options as to how we might do this and this sounds possibly reasonable. I’m sure one of them will come up with a reason why it’s not, but on the the face of it, at 7 am, it sounds ok!

The way I've seen it done best; assess a value on all items. People commit to "buy" at stated value. Tally the total of $$$ from all proceeds. Divide by number of people who benefit from the assets. Anybody who didn't want anything gets their "fair share" while those who wanted things either write a check for the amount over their "fair share" or get the difference between what they wanted and their "fair share".

Only rub is when someone tries to game the system on values so a modicum of trust, honor, integrity and respect is required from all participants.

This is a purely financial model...doesn't account for sentimental value so respecting each other also matters.

This sounds very good. I am afraid there might be a little gaming that’s about to go on, and there is definitely sentimental value involved.
Thank you for the idea.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

quote:

Originally posted by mttaylor1066:
Seems like the “let’s pick teams for playground basketball.”

Assign a random order of selectors, maybe have selectors pick a number out of a hat… the person drawing the slip of paper with #1 printed on it gets first choice, #2 gets the second, #3 gets the third choice… and then the 4th choice… #2 gets the fifth choice and #1 gets the sixth… and so on.

That way, #3 doesn’t always get the least-valuable item left available in every round.

I don’t know if this solves your problem or not.

It might. I’m trying to present options as to how we might do this and this sounds possibly reasonable. I’m sure one of them will come up with a reason why it’s not, but on the the face of it, at 7 am, it sounds ok!

I saw this exact scenario play out. Unless there are a robust number of high value selections (which in this family there weren't) this created divisions that lasted 15 years because there were 4 high value items, #1 got one, then nothing was left after #2 got one, and #3 (who decided on this methodology) got two.

You could assign values to all of the items and then give everyone an equal pool of “money” to “spend” on the items. Basically how little league coaches select their rosters after tryouts.

Or same idea but you let people bid on the items. That would take care of the selection order problem. Maybe you only need to do that for the free most valuable/desirable items.

Check your email.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

quote:

Originally posted by mttaylor1066:
Seems like the “let’s pick teams for playground basketball.”

Assign a random order of selectors, maybe have selectors pick a number out of a hat… the person drawing the slip of paper with #1 printed on it gets first choice, #2 gets the second, #3 gets the third choice… and then the 4th choice… #2 gets the fifth choice and #1 gets the sixth… and so on.

That way, #3 doesn’t always get the least-valuable item left available in every round.

I don’t know if this solves your problem or not.

It might. I’m trying to present options as to how we might do this and this sounds possibly reasonable. I’m sure one of them will come up with a reason why it’s not, but on the the face of it, at 7 am, it sounds ok!

I saw this exact scenario play out. Unless there are a robust number of high value selections (which in this family there weren't) this created divisions that lasted 15 years because there were 4 high value items, #1 got one, then nothing was left after #2 got one, and #3 (who decided on this methodology) got two.

Just by using the word robust, you’ve got my attention. I suspect you might be a mathematician or actuary.

We do have a number of highly valued items. I’m not sure if it’s robust enough though, and some of the items are purely sentimental. I’m just trying to be equitable.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:
This sounds very good. I am afraid there might be a little gaming that’s about to go on, and there is definitely sentimental value involved.
Thank you for the idea.

The other way to prevent gaming the values is to have everyone agree that a 2/3 majority needs to agree on values before everybody chooses. If that can't be reached, then the item gets sold outside the group with proceeds going into the pool. This should motivate the "gamer" to be fair.

The rub becomes when more than one person wants the same thing

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
You could assign values to all of the items and then give everyone an equal pool of “money” to “spend” on the items. Basically how little league coaches select their rosters after tryouts.

Or same idea but you let people bid on the items. That would take care of the selection order problem. Maybe you only need to do that for the free most valuable/desirable items.

Yes, we would only need to do it for the most valuable, I think. When you say assign value, do you mean a number 1 through 10 in order of monetary value, or do you mean the actual value? I’m trying to understand this concept so that I can explain it, as it sounds like a reasonable option, too.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Check your email.

Checking now! Thank you.

My first advice, if you and your siblings/etc. can pull it off, is to turn down the "caremeter" to as low a setting as possible. Trying to be generally fair and accommodating by all without worrying about precision is the key in this sort of situation in my experience.

If that means you, or two of the three, have to give more ground than you think is "fair" just live with it. Otherwise the impact on long-term relationships will be damaged more than any value likely associated with the items.

I'd try to assign value based on actual monetary value if possible and divide up that way, as close as reasonably possible. You've been a little vague about whether these items are part of a larger estate that you are chopping up. If so, and assets are supposed to be split equally and sister-1 wants mom's ring valued at $25,000, that just counts against the overall asset division as a distribution.

Again, my advice is to avoid anyone caring so much about "stuff" to impact relations. None of you had this stuff yesterday, you'll continue as always without it tomorrow, and last I checked you can't take it with you.

If there's gaming going on, call it out and get everyone to agree to stop. Or if one won't, note that, let them game on and be prepared to live with the results.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Check your email.

Checking now! Thank you.

I was typing the email and my cat decided to jump on the table, spilled my coffee, so I had to clean up. Just sent the email...

Got it and responded.

Sell everything and devide the proceeds?

When my Dad passed we auctioned everything except the car. Dealer valued the car and my stepbrother paid me out of his share of the auction proceeds. No fighting, no squabbling, no hate. We split the booze in the liquor cabinet based on what we liked.

Add the values of each item together and get a total.

Divide by three

This gives an equal division of value to each.

Now each has a ‘budget’ against which they could select individual items

This way the number of items isn’t important.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Add the values of each item together and get a total.

Divide by three

This gives an equal division of value to each.

Now each has a ‘budget’ against which they could select individual items

This way the number of items isn’t important.

This. Simple, easy, fair, and difficult to rationally dispute.