It totally should, and I'm sorry if I'm coming across as argumentative. I'm just leery of a situation like last year, where I get the feeling a lot of people voted for where they most wanted to go, and no so much for where they were most likely to go, if you get my meaning. Admittedly, these two cities are much less likely to have that sort of issue.
That's my girl... That's my good girl.
Kaylee ,'Serenity'
F2F 3: Who's Bringing the Guacamole?
Plan what to do, what to wear (you can never go wrong with a corset), and get ready for the next BuffistaCon: San Francisco, May 19-21, 2006! Everything else, go here! Swag!
brenda m - Aug 25, 2005 10:28:27 am PDT #4587 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
Nicole - Aug 25, 2005 10:35:39 am PDT #4588 of 10001
I'm getting the pig!
Yeah, last year was quite a different situation. The one and only vote was between three or four (I'm thinking four) cities. This year should be much simpler.
NoiseDesign - Aug 25, 2005 10:36:37 am PDT #4589 of 10001
Our wings are not tired
There were four cities in the final vote, but there was a fair amount of narrowing of cities before that.
DebetEsse - Aug 25, 2005 10:37:29 am PDT #4590 of 10001
Woe to the fucking wicked.
The problem, Deb, is that it doesn't take into account people who will attend either, but have a clear preference. I'm trying to come up with a ballot that accounts for both willingness/ability to attend and enthusiasm for the location, which, I think, is similar to what you're saying, Brenda.
NoiseDesign - Aug 25, 2005 10:39:54 am PDT #4591 of 10001
Our wings are not tired
We could have voting via short essay.
t /smartass
Oh who the hell am I kidding, that never closes.
DebetEsse - Aug 25, 2005 10:43:01 am PDT #4592 of 10001
Woe to the fucking wicked.
I don't think Mr. Poll offers that option.
Nicole - Aug 25, 2005 10:46:40 am PDT #4593 of 10001
I'm getting the pig!
There were four cities in the final vote, but there was a fair amount of narrowing of cities before that.
Ok. I'm just sayin' that if we had four cities this time, I'd be all for extreme voting - Check here / initial here / promise you'll come / cancellations require a note from a doctor, etc. EXTREME voting!
But with two cities, we aren't branching out in so many directions. We have two choices. I (personally) think we could even just vote YES or NO on this one. (Voting NO doesn't mean someone can't attend if the other city wins. It's just stating a preference.)
Edit - But I'm also fine with the four ways of saying YES or NO option. Just so we're clear.
Fred Pete - Aug 25, 2005 10:52:26 am PDT #4594 of 10001
Ann, that's a ferret.
There were four cities in the final vote, but there was a fair amount of narrowing of cities before that.
There were two rounds of voting. The first narrowed the choices from 6 to 4, and the second round produced one winner.
DebetEsse - Aug 25, 2005 10:55:33 am PDT #4595 of 10001
Woe to the fucking wicked.
I really strongly oppose a straight "which one" vote. More people may prefer one, but be able to attend the other, while people who prefer the other can't attend the winner.
Nicole - Aug 25, 2005 10:59:49 am PDT #4596 of 10001
I'm getting the pig!
I'm extremely confused as to why people would vote for a city just because they preferred it but couldn't attend the F2F there.