I'd like to point out that almost everyone here who didn't vote said they meant to, but didn't, not that they didn't know it was going on. In my experience, as someone who surveys extensively as part of my job, extending the voting period does not change results. (In fact, it often lowers particpation because it encourages procrastination.)
When you look back at this, in the three seconds it'll take you to turn to dust, I think you'll find the mistake was touching my stuff.
Buffy ,'Lessons'
Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job
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: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
megan walker - Oct 26, 2010 6:03:41 am PDT #4753 of 6786
"What kind of magical sunshine and lollipop world do you live in? Because you need to be medicated."-SFist
Amy - Oct 26, 2010 6:14:44 am PDT #4754 of 6786
Because books.
What megan said, absolutely.
Java cat - Oct 26, 2010 6:39:47 am PDT #4755 of 6786
Not javachik
What Windsparrow said. I knew nothing about the existence of the vote until yesterday, when it was too late.
Point taken, Jesse, about some of the more contentious discussions, but this was not one of them, am I correct? So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with. Which is fine, I guess that's the voted-on procedure, but if the desire was to get participation, the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.
Jessica - Oct 26, 2010 6:45:02 am PDT #4756 of 6786
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
I'd like to point out that almost everyone here who didn't vote said they meant to, but didn't, not that they didn't know it was going on. In my experience, as someone who surveys extensively as part of my job, extending the voting period does not change results. (In fact, it often lowers particpation because it encourages procrastination.)
This is an excellent point.
bon bon - Oct 26, 2010 6:45:27 am PDT #4757 of 6786
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with.
No, the vote happened when it did because of the rules. Four days for discussion and three days for voting. As stated before.
Amy - Oct 26, 2010 6:45:39 am PDT #4758 of 6786
Because books.
the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it
As far as I understand it, the process for this vote was the same as for any other.
§ ita § - Oct 26, 2010 6:47:05 am PDT #4759 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.
But Java, the process has been in place for seven years now. So if you check in less than every four days, you've always known you risk missing notification and discussion of a vote. This isn't new, and you must have missed many more before now. I can see you being disappointed, but there's no room for outrage.
If you object, put the wheels in motion to change the process. There was no nefarious plot going on to get this out of the way where people couldn't see what was happening. It was perfectly normal Buffista voting process, which majority has long agreed upon.
The process of this vote did not do a lot to discourage it. The process of this vote simply was.
Nora Deirdre - Oct 26, 2010 6:47:54 am PDT #4760 of 6786
I’m responsible for my own happiness? I can’t even be responsible for my own breakfast! (Bojack Horseman)
So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with.
No, not at all. It was conducted according to our process that we've used for SEVEN YEARS.
Sophia Brooks - Oct 26, 2010 6:48:11 am PDT #4761 of 6786
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
So posting the poll with such a short time frame didn't have anything to do with actually needing an answer right away, it had more to do with the people who were around wanting to get it over with. Which is fine, I guess that's the voted-on procedure, but if the desire was to get participation, the process for this vote did a lot of discourage it, not facilitate it.
If you feel that way, I think the issue would stand for every vote. I don't think that someone made a choice to try and exclude people, they were just following our rules (which are admittedly not posted, but I think we are working on that). In that case, we could definitely have a proposal to discuss a change.
msbelle - Oct 26, 2010 7:19:43 am PDT #4762 of 6786
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb
we seem to have a BS consensus on this.