Oh, I get it. Sorry. I think "poll" threw me.
Harmony: Somebody remembered to pick me up the sweetest unicorn. Guess someone was feeling guilty for standing me up in tenth grade. Brad: What? Had to get her something. She sired me. Peaches: Sire-whipped.
'Beneath You'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
Topic!Cindy - Oct 04, 2004 2:04:07 pm PDT #4404 of 10289
What is even happening?
Lyra Jane - Oct 04, 2004 2:07:23 pm PDT #4405 of 10289
Up with the sun
Oh, I get it. Sorry. I think "poll" threw me.
I've been going back and forth on it, Cindy, so no surprise. Right now, it seems to me that asking people to first vote in a poll, and then vote on the results of the poll, was a little redundant. OTOh, it might ensure we don't end up having to start more threads than we really want, so ... I dunno.
Also, re; poll -- should we do multiple-choice, or fill-in-the-blank? I can see arguments for and against either.
JenP - Oct 04, 2004 2:19:21 pm PDT #4406 of 10289
Well, let's see. If there were to be a decision on upper limit of new threads for this idea ... say two ... you could give people the option of: For which shows would you like to see a thread created? Then give an option to pick two or three. And, hey, why not let a preferential thingie happen? I've been dying to see it happen on something (no, really, I have), and this seems kind of a logical test case.
(Also, phrasing it that way - as opposed to, For which show would you participate in a separate thread? - might be good for the voter who, say, doesn't watch Lost, the OC, or Alias but who does indeed wish them to have their own threads so as not to cause the whitefonting thing in Natter that is bothersome to some. I hope that makes sense.
Well, and would you also have a No new threads option? Or would the poss be strictly, What shows are you watching/would you want a thread for?
ETA: It's possible I'm talking about a different aspect of this than what you're actually thinking about right now. If so, ignore.
Katie M - Oct 04, 2004 2:20:08 pm PDT #4407 of 10289
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
I'd do multiple choice, with folks allowed to make nominations ahead of time.
Burrell - Oct 04, 2004 2:25:44 pm PDT #4408 of 10289
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!
So to respond to the poll is to vote for the thread? That doesn't make sense to me. Or maybe I am confused. Is the idea that we decide ahead of time how many threads we can create, then there's a vote on what shows get threads?
That seems to put the creation of the thread before establishing the need.
Allyson - Oct 04, 2004 2:27:46 pm PDT #4409 of 10289
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
Maybe one choice should be: No new threads
Topic!Cindy - Oct 04, 2004 2:30:07 pm PDT #4410 of 10289
What is even happening?
Maybe one choice should be: No new threads
I agree.
JenP - Oct 04, 2004 2:31:29 pm PDT #4411 of 10289
I don't really know, Burrell. I'm posting out loud, which is perhaps just confusing. I guess what I'm saying is that there seems to be (speculation ahead) some number of people who would like a show thread created not because they think they'll participate, but because they find the impact of Shows People Watch and Talk About A Lot to be a strain on Natter. Personally? Skippy McSkipperson if I'm not interested, so I don't care. But if those people would like a voice in potential results, it might be worthwhile to think about it when wording the poll. Is all.
I repeat, if I'm off on a tangent, ignore it. I take no offense.
ETA:
Maybe one choice should be: No new threads
I meant to include that in my post, but I redrafted a couple of times.
ETAA: No, it's in there. So, obviously, I agree with including that option.
amych - Oct 04, 2004 2:32:48 pm PDT #4412 of 10289
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Maybe one choice should be: No new threads
And then there are those of us who are opposed to new threads, but have definite opinions on which shows should get them if any do at all. I'm not sure how to handle that one within one ballot.
JenP - Oct 04, 2004 2:36:01 pm PDT #4413 of 10289
Well, say we had a yes or no option for new threads. So, you'd get a count there. If "no new threads" wins, well, there you go. Don't even really need to look at the results of the next section of the poll, which is "pick your top three, if we do, indeed, decided to have threads."
So, in that case, amych gets to vote "no" but also voice her preference about which shows will get threads if her "no" vote is not the majority (or whatever) opinion. So, you still get input on creation even if creation isn't what you would prefer.