09 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 161st comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I wonder what the vote would look like if you weighted votes by time on the forum, number of posts (either straight weighting, bucketing, or applying some threshold), or some other metric to separate new accounts from people who regularly frequent the forum.
IMO the true coin of the realm is the set of ideas expressed in the debate and the conclusions drawn from them. Not an easily skewed, poorly constructed, and arbitrarily judged poll of anyone who's registered, active participant or not.
While the comparisons to "real life" voting are interesting, they're not really applicable here. My understanding of "mud voting" sites is that even with high turnout, the outcomes don't necessarily reflect what the polls intend to measure ("best mud"), but rather who gamed the voting best.
09 Oct, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 162nd comment:
Votes: 0
Certainly. I was mainly curious how many of the votes were by regulars, how many were by casual posters, and how many were by new users. (I.e., I was wondering about the vote demographics.)
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain in Eruption
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain in Eruption
Since participating in either requires faith in the unknown, I don't think "reasoning powers" are really involved. :cool:
I voted "Yes - Disallow then entirely", as politics and religion are subjects that most people have already made their mind up about, so there's no real resolution - just heated arguments. Furthermore, the resulting animosity can sometimes spill over into other threads.
Having said that, I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of picture Cratylus links to when he makes post #1000 on that God thread. I'm hoping it'll involve the flying spaghetti monster, or at least some reference to a noodly appendage.
I wonder what the vote would look like if you weighted votes by time on the forum, number of posts (either straight weighting, bucketing, or applying some threshold), or some other metric to separate new accounts from people who regularly frequent the forum.
I wonder what elections in the US would look like if we still had poll taxes, literacy tests, and allowed double voting from citizens older than 40……
09 Oct, 2009, shasarak wrote in the 168th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
I wonder what elections in the US would look like if we still had poll taxes, literacy tests, and allowed double voting from citizens older than 40……
They would look undemocratic. Not unlike the 2000 presidential election, in fact.
I wonder what elections in the US would look like if we still had poll taxes, literacy tests, and allowed double voting from citizens older than 40……
They would look undemocratic. Not unlike the 2000 presidential election, in fact.
they look pretty undemocratic as it is really..
Not unlike the election in 2008…..
10 Oct, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 171st comment:
Votes: 0
Isn't it wonderful how a thread about not talking about politics and religion has devolved into precisely that?
10 Oct, 2009, elanthis wrote in the 172nd comment:
Votes: 0
When do we start the poll about banning the starting of polls about the discussion of religion or politics on poll discussions about banning discussions about religion or politics?
From what I've read on MudBytes, our religious threads aren't all that crazy. It's when US (specifically US) politics get involved. Then we get to see Right Vs. Left with the battle field being MudBytes. I'd imagine that a lot (not all!) of those "get rid'ver!"'s are not US citizens.
From what I've read on MudBytes, our religious threads aren't all that crazy. It's when US (specifically US) politics get involved. Then we get to see Right Vs. Left with the battle field being MudBytes. I'd imagine that a lot (not all!) of those "get rid'ver!"'s are not US citizens.
Some of us are just too apathetic to even voice our opinions on lost causes like political debates on forums. That is to say if everyone who had an opinion on these subjects were to jump in the fray it'd be even worse than it is.
Not that it takes the wind out of our sails any less when said people have to sift through religious and political debates derailing legit threads.
10 Oct, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 175th comment:
Votes: 0
So, is anything actually ever going to come of this vote or was it really just for giggles (as all Mudbytes votes are)?
Yes, the results speak for themselves and the following amendment has been made:
"Topics and/or posts on religion and/or politics are not permitted here."
There will be a grace period of 7 days to allow existing topics to wind down, but no new ones should be posted during that time. After that time frame, the ones still open will be locked.
IMO the true coin of the realm is the set of ideas expressed
in the debate and the conclusions drawn from them. Not an
easily skewed, poorly constructed, and arbitrarily judged poll
of anyone who's registered, active participant or not.
While the comparisons to "real life" voting are interesting, they're
not really applicable here. My understanding of "mud voting" sites
is that even with high turnout, the outcomes don't necessarily
reflect what the polls intend to measure ("best mud"), but rather
who gamed the voting best.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net