Also, there were multiple votes on city preferences and all of those votes had many more than 20 people voting in favor of NO. I suppose I should have added the tag line, "If you have no intention of attending please don't vote for a city." I've learned my lesson on that front.
I know people hate the method of ranking votes, but maybe that would have helped.
The vote results, here: Fred Pete "F2F 2: Is there anybody here that hasn't slept together?" Sep 27, 2004 6:00:56 pm PDT
were New Orleans -- 23; Kansas City -- 20; Minneapolis -- 17; Toronto -- 10.
Since it's impossible to know, without ranking, whether votes for the other cities also meant "will not attend NOLA," maybe the best number to use for hotels would have been just the 23 votes for NOLA. I don't know.
I like Jon's suggestion here: Jon B. "F2F 2: Is there anybody here that hasn't slept together?" Sep 14, 2004 2:00:46 pm PDT
, which is:
I'm all for ranking choices, but we know how well that plays here.
I do think we should ask people to indicate, for each city, if they
a) almost definitely would attend
b) might attend
c) probably would not attend
d) almost definitely would not attend
If a city has a plurality of the vote, but a high negative score, and another city is a close second but with a much lower negative, we should maybe consider the second place choice.
I guess, though, how we vote is up to DebetEsse?
I guess, though, how we vote is up to DebetEsse?
We're really getting practice relinquishing decisions, aren't we?
I'm very much in favor of ranked choices, for both dates and cities.
I'm very much in favor of ranked choices, for both dates and cities.
t makes note for dating technique
I guess, though, how we vote is up to DebetEsse?
We're really getting practice relinquishing decisions, aren't we?
Well, I don't know how we know who's "in charge" of this thing. So far Debet has taken the reins, which I have no problem with at all, for the record, but I don't know who decides what.
People seem to hate ranked votes, but perhaps ranking would have made things clearer for NOLA.
However, *I* am not going to just bust in and say "Yes! We MUST have a ranked vote for F2F 2006!" because, as always, some people will agree, some people will disagree, there will be arguments, and regardless of which voting method we use, someone will be unhappy with the outcome.
All I'm offering is my opinion, and wondering *if* in fact we might change how we vote, *how* does that decision even get made.
All I'm offering is my opinion, and wondering *if* in fact we might change how we vote, *how* does that decision even get made.
If I'm not crazy, we did use ranked voting for the earlier one. Last year was the anomaly, though I don't recall why.
However, *I* am not going to just bust in and say "Yes! We MUST have a ranked vote for F2F 2006!" because, as always, some people will agree, some people will disagree, there will be arguments, and regardless of which voting method we use, someone will be unhappy with the outcome.
Then I will do it for you, Steph, because I'm unlikely to make it to the 2006 F2F anyway and thus have no dog in this particular hunt, and because I'm in Australia and none of you can touch me anyway. Neener neener.
I likes the ranking. Go ranking, choose ranking. All those in favour, say intergalactic planetary planetary intergalactic. All those against, you're on my list.
When it comes to envy, y'all is green.
