08 Oct, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 102nd comment:
sam.j.brown said:
"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.
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.
When the vote is whether to restrict something or not a "Don't Care" is clearly someone who doesn't specifically want it restricted, which is all that should matter.
08 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 103rd comment:
Samson said:
"Don't Care" is the equivalent of an abstention. Those are typically not counted in any meaningful vote.
If plurality voting is good enough to elect your Congressman, or to elect members of parliament in other countries, it's good enough to decide policy on a website.
If plurality voting is good enough to elect your Congressman, or to elect members of parliament in other countries, it's good enough to decide policy on a website.
Before I get accused of being a sorehead again, let me remind folks I was
one of the people arguing for the removal of the general chatter board entirely.
Having said that, you have to recognize that there is a difference between
not voting and voting "don't care", and discarding those votes means the option
should not have been available in the first place, again pointing to the flawed
process. It really ought have been thought through a bit more carefully rather
than rashly thrown up, and it's really not that big a deal to do it over, but
do it right this time. What are we afraid of anyway? Clearer results?
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Oct, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 104th comment:
Samson said:
"Don't Care" is the equivalent of an abstention. Those are typically not counted in any meaningful vote.
If plurality voting is good enough to elect your Congressman, or to elect members of parliament in other countries, it's good enough to decide policy on a website.
If plurality voting is good enough to elect your Congressman, or to elect members of parliament in other countries, it's good enough to decide policy on a website.
Governmental bodies such as Congress also require a 2/3 vote to pass any change.
08 Oct, 2009, Guest wrote in the 105th comment:
I can't help but feel you'd be adamantly opposing the results if they'd gone your way. Regardless, we're not doing this over.
Since when? Last I checked changes are being voted into law all the time in the US Congress and we haven't had one with a 2/3 majority in ages. Either way, we're not doing this over.
Fizban said:
Governmental bodies such as Congress also require a 2/3 vote to pass any change.
Since when? Last I checked changes are being voted into law all the time in the US Congress and we haven't had one with a 2/3 majority in ages. Either way, we're not doing this over.
08 Oct, 2009, sam.j.brown wrote in the 106th comment:
"When the vote is whether to restrict something or not a "Don't Care" is clearly someone who doesn't specifically want it restricted"
I would be happy for you to cite any instance where this actually takes place. As Samson has pointed out, in all real world situations, dont care, or abstention votes are not counted.
Critically, how can you be certain that person X does not care more for No than Yes. What measures are you using to determine this. The only thing that can be certain is that person X does not care for Yes and No in equal measure.
I would be happy for you to cite any instance where this actually takes place. As Samson has pointed out, in all real world situations, dont care, or abstention votes are not counted.
Critically, how can you be certain that person X does not care more for No than Yes. What measures are you using to determine this. The only thing that can be certain is that person X does not care for Yes and No in equal measure.
08 Oct, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 107th comment:
Samson said:
I can't help but feel you'd be adamantly opposing the results if they'd gone your way. Regardless, we're not doing this over.
And I can't help but feel that if it wasn't currently leaning YOUR]/b] way you'd be bitching and moaning that the options weren't black and white enough.
08 Oct, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 108th comment:
Me said:
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
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
I agree with you Sam. :P
08 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 109th comment:
Samson said:
I can't help but feel you'd be adamantly opposing the results if they'd gone your way.
Is this addressed to me?
Samson said:
Regardless, we're not doing this over.
I'd like to point out that while you can indeed steamroll this through since
you're admin and that's your privilege, it strikes me as a bad idea.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Oct, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 110th comment:
sam.j.brown said:
"When the vote is whether to restrict something or not a "Don't Care" is clearly someone who doesn't specifically want it restricted"
I would be happy for you to cite any instance where this actually takes place. As Samson has pointed out, in all real world situations, dont care, or abstention votes are not counted.
I would be happy for you to cite any instance where this actually takes place. As Samson has pointed out, in all real world situations, dont care, or abstention votes are not counted.
In all real world situations there is no "I don't Care" option.
Never have I seen an option on a ballot that had "I don't give a shit." as an option for President. Voting you "Don't care if people discuss religion." is logically stating you are fine with people doing so, is it not?
08 Oct, 2009, Guest wrote in the 111th comment:
Fizban said:
And I can't help but feel that if it wasn't currently leaning [bYOUR]/b] way you'd be bitching and moaning that the options weren't black and white enough.
You'd be wrong. If I/we didn't want to seek input, it wouldn't have gone up as a poll. We simply would have decreed the topics off limits without any sort of prior discussion on the matter. And that I can assure you would have led to flamewars and accusations of fascism. However, it seems more people than not want to do away with them, and I don't see this changing anytime soon, so I'm confident that acting on the results we have now will not be an act taken in a vacuum.
08 Oct, 2009, Fizban wrote in the 112th comment:
Chris Bailey said:
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
That is more or less where my thoughts come from. Someone who "doesn't care" clearly doesn't mind them being discussed and such should be regarded as a "No.".
08 Oct, 2009, Guest wrote in the 113th comment:
Fizban said:
In all real world situations there is no "I don't Care" option.
Never have I seen an option on a ballot that had "I don't give a shit." as an option for President. Voting you "Don't care if people discuss religion." is logically stating you are fine with people doing so, is it not?
Again, since you are bringing up real life scenarios, if this was a real life scenario "Yes." would require 2/3 of the vote.
Never have I seen an option on a ballot that had "I don't give a shit." as an option for President. Voting you "Don't care if people discuss religion." is logically stating you are fine with people doing so, is it not?
Again, since you are bringing up real life scenarios, if this was a real life scenario "Yes." would require 2/3 of the vote.
In NO elections? None whatsoever? You've not seen the write-in box where people do in fact write in options amounting to "who gives a crap"?
And since most elections I've seen and participated in don't require 2/3 of the vote to elect a candidate, I seriously question where you're getting this from. Congress doesn't even operate that way on daily issues. Do you have any idea how many laws have been passed with simple majorities or even with NO MAJORITY at all?
Also, for the record, unless you're all AI constructs in a program I wrote but forgot about, this is in fact a real life scenario.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNDddddddddddd……. the last few posts in this very poll thread are a perfect example of why the question was asked!
08 Oct, 2009, sam.j.brown wrote in the 114th comment:
"In all real world situations there is no "I don't Care" option. "
There is always an i don't care option, you can choose not to vote, you can choose to lodge a donkey vote. What you have not shown is anything to back your argument that by voting i don't care means that they do care and that they care more for the No. Because if i don't care actually means No, then all the No votes actually mean Yes and this whole debate is moot because the Yes have already won.
There is always an i don't care option, you can choose not to vote, you can choose to lodge a donkey vote. What you have not shown is anything to back your argument that by voting i don't care means that they do care and that they care more for the No. Because if i don't care actually means No, then all the No votes actually mean Yes and this whole debate is moot because the Yes have already won.
08 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 115th comment:
sam.j.brown said:
"In all real world situations there is no "I don't Care" option. "
There is always an i don't care option, you can choose not to vote, you can choose to lodge a donkey vote. What you have not shown is anything to back your argument that by voting i don't care means that they do care and that they care more for the No. Because if i don't care actually means No, then all the No votes actually mean Yes and this whole debate is moot because the Yes have already won.
There is always an i don't care option, you can choose not to vote, you can choose to lodge a donkey vote. What you have not shown is anything to back your argument that by voting i don't care means that they do care and that they care more for the No. Because if i don't care actually means No, then all the No votes actually mean Yes and this whole debate is moot because the Yes have already won.
Y'know, I guess because all your posts have been in this one thread
I kinda get the feeling you feel strongly about this, but let's put aside
our partisanship and let me welcome you to Mudbytes! As you can
see, acrimonious dispute is not limited to religion and politics threads.
I hope your head doesn't explode when things get vitriolic no matter
what topic is disallowed.
I'd like to once again point out that there is a real difference between
not voting and voting "don't care", and if those votes are just going to
be dropped, it points to the flawed process.
If the desire is for results that don't look like the thumb is on the scale,
why not work together for clarity?
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Oct, 2009, sam.j.brown wrote in the 116th comment:
"I'd like to once again point out that there is a real difference between
not voting and voting "don't care", and if those votes are just going to
be dropped, it points to the flawed process. "
I agree with you mostly, while i consider these votes are the same as a donkey vote, i can understand that not everyone sees it the same way. As there is going to be no do-over, don't you think that the most equatable solution would be to share the votes equally among the other 3 options? This way, all different opinions are satisfied and there can then be no claim of electoral bias.
not voting and voting "don't care", and if those votes are just going to
be dropped, it points to the flawed process. "
I agree with you mostly, while i consider these votes are the same as a donkey vote, i can understand that not everyone sees it the same way. As there is going to be no do-over, don't you think that the most equatable solution would be to share the votes equally among the other 3 options? This way, all different opinions are satisfied and there can then be no claim of electoral bias.
08 Oct, 2009, Dean wrote in the 117th comment:
Well, generally not caring would be shown by not-voting (Aka Cratylus).
Personally for me, it should of been either a clear yes or no vote in the poll. If don't care, they won't vote and then there won't be any 'donkey votes' to water down the legitimate ones.
Personally for me, it should of been either a clear yes or no vote in the poll. If don't care, they won't vote and then there won't be any 'donkey votes' to water down the legitimate ones.
08 Oct, 2009, sam.j.brown wrote in the 118th comment:
"Personally for me, it should of been either a clear yes or no vote in the poll. "
I agree that this would have made things simpler, but i can see that the instigator of the poll was also seeking answer to questions other than the one posed. What this poll also shows is that some people don't care at all what happens, it also shows that a % of those who would like to keep these topic would also like to see some restriction placed on them. A simple yes/no would not give you an understanding of these broader issues and perspectives that would would most likely have to be dealt with at some point.
Would this discussion even be taking place if 50% of the vote said don't care, or if there was 50% combined No. Or is the only reason why this discussion is taking place purely because 50% of people voted to removed these topics and that this means a change for these boards and that with change, someone is always going to feel like they have been aggrieved.
I agree that this would have made things simpler, but i can see that the instigator of the poll was also seeking answer to questions other than the one posed. What this poll also shows is that some people don't care at all what happens, it also shows that a % of those who would like to keep these topic would also like to see some restriction placed on them. A simple yes/no would not give you an understanding of these broader issues and perspectives that would would most likely have to be dealt with at some point.
Would this discussion even be taking place if 50% of the vote said don't care, or if there was 50% combined No. Or is the only reason why this discussion is taking place purely because 50% of people voted to removed these topics and that this means a change for these boards and that with change, someone is always going to feel like they have been aggrieved.
08 Oct, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 119th comment:
I am utterly astounded that people think that "no – but heavily discourage them" is anything like saying "no – just as valid". The two options strike me as completely different! Their only similarity is that neither group wants a formal ban. Otherwise, the two groups share relatively little.
Think about the difference between "yes: ban them" and "no: but heavily discourage". It seems very clear that neither group likes the topics or thinks they should be on the board (otherwise, indeed, why would you discourage them??). The difference between these groups is that one thinks it should be against the rules like trolling is, and the other doesn't think it should be against the rules, but still should not take place.
It doesn't really matter, because "yes: ban them" is ahead anyhow, but people should really not be thinking that the "discourage it" people are just as happy about the threads as the "allow it" people. If you think these are actually the same, I would really like to hear what reason you could have for thinking this. (Know still that it doesn't really matter…)
Think about the difference between "yes: ban them" and "no: but heavily discourage". It seems very clear that neither group likes the topics or thinks they should be on the board (otherwise, indeed, why would you discourage them??). The difference between these groups is that one thinks it should be against the rules like trolling is, and the other doesn't think it should be against the rules, but still should not take place.
It doesn't really matter, because "yes: ban them" is ahead anyhow, but people should really not be thinking that the "discourage it" people are just as happy about the threads as the "allow it" people. If you think these are actually the same, I would really like to hear what reason you could have for thinking this. (Know still that it doesn't really matter…)
08 Oct, 2009, sam.j.brown wrote in the 120th comment:
"I am utterly astounded that people think that "no – but heavily discourage them" is anything like saying "no – just as valid". "
I think what groups them together is that there are few, if any people on these boards who have the will power to not partake in these types of discussions. You, yourself, David, partake in these discussions regularly, which shows no clear leadership for your position that these topics should restricted. And if our communal peers do not have the stamina to abstain form these topic, what hope is there for us peonies in the beginning of our careers, whom take guidance from those who are leaders and respected members of this community.
I think what groups them together is that there are few, if any people on these boards who have the will power to not partake in these types of discussions. You, yourself, David, partake in these discussions regularly, which shows no clear leadership for your position that these topics should restricted. And if our communal peers do not have the stamina to abstain form these topic, what hope is there for us peonies in the beginning of our careers, whom take guidance from those who are leaders and respected members of this community.
Random Picks
If plurality voting is good enough to elect your Congressman, or to elect members of parliament in other countries, it's good enough to decide policy on a website.
post count and join date.
Maybe governmental elections should be weighted by the number of editorials people write to their papers and the length of time they've been alive?