'Safe'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
... was a vote not to open a thread with specs to be determined, as those voters chose one of the two already defined alternate spoiler threads...
Polter-Cow has been spending too much time parsing bio-chem texts. He thinks this utterance explains things.
Hey, Jon. I don't want to step on any toes, so if you'd prefer I not, that's totally cool, but I was thinking about updating the photo gallery. Mostly that I'd like to spearhead a doing of it.
You mean redesign it, or just add photos to it?
Liese, I read it as individual votes on three separate new threads. If all three had passed, we'd have three new spoiler threads, on top of the one we have.
I wondered about the possibility of ending up with three different spoiler light threads when I read the ballot.
If all three had passed, we'd have three new spoiler threads, on top of the one we have.
le nubian implied that if that happened, she'd examine the data and propose another vote to settle it.
I asked about that, because this ballot was very different than ones we've done in the past. le nubian said:
I'm an academic, so I'd prefer to collect the most data and then deal with the results later. I can't think of another way to do it that would address the Hard Core Spoiler people and the Hard Core Lite people.
This gives people as much choice as they desire and if this nets too many recommended threads, then we can deal with that in another week.
In some ways, I feel that the administrative issue and what people want are two different things that need to be dealt with in separate instances. If people see this as REALLY problematic, I can change the poll again.le nubian "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Nov 3, 2004 4:46:24 am PST
Xpost w/Jon
I'm going to start off by saying the balloting is done, and we had a single choice. I have no problem with either that, that there were multiple choices, or the outcome. Here's the thing.
This gives people as much choice as they desire and if this nets too many recommended threads, then we can deal with that in another week.
Nowhere in the ballot was it mentioned that we were voting on preferences or recommendations, or that it was an elaborate poll. The way we've set things up, if pluralities had chosen all three options, we'd have three threads, and we wouldn't be able to change that for six months, not a week. Not everybody reads the entire lightbulb thread before voting. I didn't. I think in the future, if there's any kind of unfinished business attached to a choice or choices on the ballot, it ought to be stated on the ballot.
Not everybody reads the entire lightbulb thread before voting. I didn't. I think in the future, if there's any kind of unfinished business attached to a choice or choices on the ballot, it ought to be stated on the ballot.I agree. I had a lot of issues with how the final ballot was structured. How do we enforce that though (or even be on watch for it), when not everyone reads through lightbulb? One of the issues in this case, was that the proposer was new to the process, and so not only did she have to decide which suggestions (content-wise) she should incorporate, she also had to deal with structure suggestions, and at some point, the two sort of over-lapped.
I knew I'd already worn out my welcome in the conversation, and so I decided it was time to shut up, figuring either I was worried about something nobody else seemed to be worried about (frequently the case), or that someone else would take up the cause. Isn't this a case of skip-at-your-own-peril?
How do we enforce that though (or even be on watch for it), when not everyone reads through lightbulb?
I don't think you can enforce a thing. In the end, if LeN had decided to submit a proposal about what sort of sandwich she was to have for lunch, and a poorly phrased one at that, so be it.
Okay, I'm fine with it. Sorry for stirring the pot. It all came out to a conclusion that could be implemented, and the proposer had the right to phrase the ballot any way she pleased. I was just mildly befuddled because I thought I had understood the ballot one way before and after implementation understood it another (clearly the intended) way.