Or, just maybe there were more people against it than you realise? The longer the thread was allowed to be kept alive (aka giving plenty of time for all those lurkers out there to see the thread) the more chance this had of occuring. Of course, there is a chance things could change.. but I am confident that the CPD* will achieve victory here.




*The one man, Communist Party of Dean. :stare:

To be honest, while I think it was nice of Samson to ask for opinions, I really think the decision should be left to the Moderators. After all, it's their workload we're talking about.

And you're quite right, it makes perfect sense that folks that don't log in often enough to keep up with the rapidly moving political and religious threads would vote against it. I was just amused that the 7 straight votes in a row seemed to defy the Bell curve. Then again, I do have a warped sense of humor. I created a random number generator that doesn't repeat two numbers in a row, as that's what most people think "random" means. :wink:

Wait… didn't I post here? (Isn't Sandi replying to my post?) I thought I had a post in between #61 and #62, where I said basically that it's not surprising that early voters vote one way and later voters another…

I do believe that your post disappeared somehow. :thinking:

Re-post your post for my viewing pleasure.

EDIT: I think the "No-Opinion" votes should be counted as "Valid Topic" votes. If the individuals casting a non-vote have not formulated an opinion about whether or not they are bothered by these topics then they are most obviously not bothered by these topics. I don't care to go into the details of it right now but I'll post a convincing argument later. :P

cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet

It took me a while to figure that out, and after translating it I realized I should have known that it was ol' Fermat. :thinking:

I couldn't disagree more. The whole mods-dictating-what-users-can-discusss thing was what sparked the last bit of forum drama, as I'm sure you recall.

Also, well, frankly, we've seen that at least some of the moderators and administrators are also interested in these discussions. Things get complicated when active participants are also the ones deciding who stepped over which line.

Now, I think that in the end of the day, it'll be a site policy decision, but everybody should know that bad things will continue happening until people get around to not bringing around the situations that cause bad things to happen… (A tautological statement if I've ever seen one!)

Or we simply don't care either way, and like our option just like it is :3

That's not quite how I would characterise it, but as I'm sureyou recall, I supported Rule 14.

It does appear, however, that you've pointed out a small oversight in the Rules. Apparently, it still needs to be made clear that if a Moderator asks you cease discussing something, you STFU.

You aren't opinionated enough in this matter to have an opinion on how your opinion is considered, evidenced by your lack of opinion in voting.

CB: as Keanu might say… "Woah"
(How many opinions would an opinionchuck have if an opinionchuck could have opinions?)

But NOT by my lack of voting itself, voiding this entire discussion and returning to 1.

Somehow missed this topic. Personally, I think they're completely valid. If you're going to get butt-hurt over religion or politics, you have other issues to sort out.

This isn't about getting "butt-hurt" over the topics. It's about that fact that people are dead set in their views on these topics, and won't budge in their opinions. Thus huge flamewars result, and it's not something people like to see when they come looking for Mud related information. And I think at 23 to 16, it seems relatively plain to see what people would rather not see.

That doesn't add up to the current 47 votes. It's 24 "No" to 23 "Yes". :wink:

I don't think it's entirely reasonable to put the two categories of "no" votes in the same bucket. In fact, it seems more reasonable to assume that people who think it should be heavily discouraged are closer to those who want it banned outright than those who want to give it free rein.

And one needs to keep in mind it should read 24 to ban, since I botched my own attempt to vote on it.

Flame wars are generally the result of getting butt-hurt over something which was said that you don't agree with. If you're going to have a general discussion forum the topics need to be a viable topic to discuss. If you're going to ban those two discussions because it has nothing to do with MUDding, just remove the general forum all together.