I don't think Mr. Poll offers that option.
It's my estimation that... every man ever got a statue made of him, was one kind of sumbitch or another.
Mal ,'Jaynestown'
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!
DebetEsse - Aug 25, 2005 10:43:01 am PDT #4592 of 10001
Woe to the fucking wicked.
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.
§ ita § - Aug 25, 2005 11:02:35 am PDT #4597 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think the goal is to capture the difference between "Prefer to go to SF, can make Seattle" and "Can't afford Seattle, can we do SF?"
Emily - Aug 25, 2005 11:03:00 am PDT #4598 of 10001
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola
I don't think she meant "Vote for one but only be able to attend the other," just "vote for one but also be able to attend the other." I think.
NoiseDesign - Aug 25, 2005 11:03:05 am PDT #4599 of 10001
Our wings are not tired
Buffistas do many things which confuse me.
Emily - Aug 25, 2005 11:03:33 am PDT #4600 of 10001
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola
Once again, too slow on the post.
Jessica - Aug 25, 2005 11:09:33 am PDT #4601 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
My feeling is that it doesn't matter which one people prefer, if they'd attend either way.
[That came out more callous than it should have. What I mean is, there are going to be people who are only going to be able to go to one or the other. They are the people who the vote will ultimately affect most, and so the vote should be worded in such a way as to make their votes count. The people who can't afford to go, period, and the people who will be there wherever it is aren't really as important to this part of the process.]