There are plenty of topics that are MUD- or MB-related but aren't necessarily appropriate in other sections. The "general" section is appropriate for these.

Or accusing people of arguing dishonestly when they don't agree with your side of an argument, and the one being accused gets fed up with it. Just a thought. And since this only seems to happen with religious and political topics, it makes the most sense that those should simply be cast aside, as is done on pretty much every sane non-religion and non-politics forum I've ever seen.

Dude, they had the chance to vote "Yes", and they didn't. Are you saying you know what they meant better than they did? By golly, I think you are.

Sandi, are you really saying that people who say "heavily discourage" and people who say "just as valid" are basically agreeing? By golly, I think you are. :wink:

By the way, I am one of those five people, so yeah, actually, I do think I know at least what I meant, and I can make pretty good guesses as to what the others meant and why they chose to vote 'discourage' instead of 'forbid'.

I think it's quite obvious that the two versions of 'no' cannot be conflated. You might not agree that the 'discourage' people are similar to the 'forbid' people – I think it's pretty clear that they are, but hey, that's just me – but it would be rather unreasonable to bucket both 'no' groups together.

Maybe I don't understand, then. You're not saying these "No" votes should be counted as "Yes", are you?

By ignoring those votes, Kayle seemed to be slanting things in favor of banning the subjects. Turns out, I'm just trying to protect your interests here. It's not simply white/black as Kayle implied.

Lookit, either it's black/white, or it isn't.

What is pertinent to understand is that you are voting for one of 4 possible outcomes. It would seen clear to the casual observer that the Yes have more than 50% of all the votes. This is a clear and resounding result that gives a clear mandate to those who run this website to remove these types of discussions. The arguing of semantics by some viewers as to whose vote counts for what, does nothing more than add further support to the YES camp, by further illustrating the very reasons why the majority of readers of this site voted to have these discussions removed.

I think it's obvious this poll needs to be closed and replaced with a simply worded
question that has yes/no as the only options.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

No do-overs just cause you don't like the results.

Heh, I didn't even vote. I'm good either way. The poll is critically flawed to
the point that people don't know which choice marries up with the ambiguous option.

Whatever happens, if you decide based on these votes, it's a totally
arbitrary call on your part in terms of what the results mean.

It's not like a redo costs you anything. Loosen up.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

I hope Sandi doesn't mind me recycling her obviously relevant quote :)

Voted.

No - They're as valid as any other subject.

Looking at the current totals, I don't think it changes the result however you count the different options. The "yes disallow them entirely" option has more votes than the other three combined.

Edit: I just thought I should put my comment in context as obviously the results can change over time. There is already a proposal on the moderator board to close the poll with the result being to disallow posting on these subjects.

Same amount now that I've voted actually.

To clarify my thoughts. I see no reason to disallow or limit topics of discussion. If people don't want there to be discussions of certain types my suggestion to them is to not open threads with those topics.

Simply because something is posted does not mean you must read it.

"The poll is critically flawed "

Simple mathematics can fix this poll.

1. 3 people don't care, so we remove those votes. 52 - 3 = 49 total votes.
2. Group all the No's together for a total of 23 votes.
3. Yes has 26 votes.

Yes just increased its % of total votes and is the clear winner of proposition 666.

I think more people would have voted if the choices had been yes or no.

I think that if this poll is left open a few weeks the ambiguous option will get a lot more votes.

I think it's ok to redo with clear questions.

-Crat

Logic failure.

When a poll is whether to restrict something "Don't Care" basically equates to "No.".

ie.

26 people want them restricted.

26 either don't want them restricted, or at the least do not mind them existing.

In a vote to change something a vote of "don't care" makes most sense to be interpreted as a vote to have no change.

52 votes on a site that averages about 70 member logins per day is statistically significant and leaving it open longer will not guarantee that many more people will actually vote.

"Don't Care" basically equates to "No."

No, it means they do not care if the answer is yes or no, thus, the safest route for these votes would be to divide them equally between the main two options of yes and no, or to remove them entirely, which provides the same outcome.


#!/bin/100

Hey i was just post 100 and now i have been pushed back to 99. This is so unfair.

100!

Now that I think of it, maybe votes should be weighted for
post count and join date.