I thought we were supposed to blame Nilly for everything?
Me = anti-proliferation, don't think lurkers get a say until we get advertisers and they get nielsen boxes for our board, and cilantro grows out of satan's anus.
Wesley: Perhaps the whole point of this experiment is hair. Gunn: I vote he's not in charge.
'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco'
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
Allyson - Aug 01, 2007 3:42:01 pm PDT #662 of 6786
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
Jesse - Aug 01, 2007 4:26:52 pm PDT #663 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Well, lurkers do get a say -- any registered person can vote, when we vote. And lurkers do vote. Not in huge numbers, but I think that's fine. I lurk elsewhere, too, and I probably wouldn't vote there, if there were voting there. Because I'm not part of the community. And that's fine, too.
Denise - Aug 01, 2007 4:37:02 pm PDT #664 of 6786
But I do disagree with your interpretation, and I do intend to point that out.
Of course. I wouldn't expect anyone not to if they disagreed with me.
Fair enough and I'm sorry for misinterpreting you, Denise.
No big deal. It's easy to take things more personally than they were intended in the heat of all of this, I think. All's good as far as I'm concerned.
§ ita § - Aug 01, 2007 4:38:03 pm PDT #665 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
In my book, voting is delurking.
Yes, people who registered yesterday have the same voting power as I do. Kinda annoying, but there's no fix for it that doesn't fuck up more than it addresses.
DavidS - Aug 01, 2007 4:41:43 pm PDT #666 of 6786
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Back when we instituted voting we just basically said, "If a huge influx of locusts registers and tries to take over the board by exploiting our agreed upon voting system we'd just ignore them."
The structure is there to serve us. If there's an obvious abuse then we wouldn't abide by it.
Jesse - Aug 01, 2007 4:46:00 pm PDT #667 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
In my book, voting is delurking.
I guess, but if you've never counted votes, you've still never heard of them.
§ ita § - Aug 01, 2007 4:47:28 pm PDT #668 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Is the last 100 people who signed up having a different opinion than the first 50 who signed up abuse? Whether they signed up over a year or the last half an hour?
Jesse - Aug 01, 2007 4:48:39 pm PDT #669 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I think the idea is that we'd kind of be able to tell if it was 5 people and their 50 sockpuppets.
Dana - Aug 01, 2007 4:48:54 pm PDT #670 of 6786
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
Ack. Stop constructing hypothetical disaster scenarios. It's freaking me out.
§ ita § - Aug 01, 2007 4:51:25 pm PDT #671 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Technically I've heard of everyone, because I get to see the user lists and the registration emails.
On the flip side if they post where I can't see them they are invisible to me, but they have an impact on the board. I feel the same way about donating money, although I think the amount has squat to do with it.
They've made their persistent existence known in some way other than using bandwidth.
Sean, technically I could do numbers like the ones you mention, but there'd probably be a disconnect because unique visitors can be a muddier number than the ones we track explicitly.