The thing about using the pajodcast topic choice is that we aren't always pushing out own players for awards, but we do spend a lot of time talking about them. We talk about them because they interest us, but if you listened to the awards prediction one (pre-playoffs) we rarely spoke about our own players except for places where they belonged. Devise spent the entire time we talked MVP arguing for Tukio when he could easily have said Rift. I think he picked himself for the Shaw, but anyone else could easily have also picked Rift there and I feel the only other time one of us was mentioned was Kellinger for the Pussy Award, and we only glazed over him long enough to say that though Sandro had 8 fewer PIM, the 30 points were more relevant.
We do often come to the boards unified in opinion, but that comes from us having already talked about them before hand in skype. We often start the discussion arguing for two different players but Chris and Devise will go look really deep into stats and make an argument that changes my or the other's mind. By the time we post we've all come to the same page. That doesn't mean we decide these things together, we've also stayed apart on things that we fundamentally disagree on, but there are often times where one side is able to convince the other that his stance is stronger.
It doesn't always come across in text, but both Chris and Devise are excellent at conveying their point of view to others, even when talking to someone who has limited knowledge on the subject. This usually leads the "group" to fully understand the views of everyone in it, and often that is a situation that leads to a consensus. So while we don't "vote" together, we do have discussions about our opinions, and sometimes those opinions are changed. There isn't anything wrong with that, it makes for a more informed opinion.