board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Should Simple Majority Rule?

Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 118 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Should Invites be Determined by Simple Majority of Those Voting?
Poll ended at Fri 11 Feb , 2005 9:37 pm
Yes
  
46% [ 11 ]
No
  
54% [ 13 ]
Total votes: 24
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 8:19 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Can I just say something about the voting process in this thread?

Simple majority means that you add up the yes's and no's and whichever is the greater number carries the day.

Folks who want to include a veto option should vote "NO" in this thread, and when the voting is concluded, if the no's win I will start another thread where we can vote on the inclusion/terms of the veto, since that seems to be the strongest alternative to simple majority.

If you voted YES for simple majority ... but WANT the veto, please tell me in this thread so that I can keep track of how many votes should be switched.

Lidless, this is all because you moved to Florida.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 9:30 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I like the veto, so long as a vetoed candidate can't then be renominated, at least until the period of time the vetoing member has to wait until using the veto again.

Does that make sense?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 9:45 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
I like Guru's idea of scrapping the voting, and just having a thread to discover if there are any serious objections to the poster.


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:01 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Not really getting the whole veto thing. Would it mean that 50 people could vote yes and that if one person uses their veto that the person wouldn't get in? If that's the case, I can say I don't really like that system. I don't like one person's opinion outweighing everybody else's.

Of course I could totally be getting this wrong.


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:07 am
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
Eruname wrote:
Not really getting the whole veto thing. Would it mean that 50 people could vote yes and that if one person uses their veto that the person wouldn't get in? If that's the case, I can say I don't really like that system. I don't like one person's opinion outweighing everybody else's.

Of course I could totally be getting this wrong.
No, you're not getting it wrong. The idea is that they could only do it once, though. Sort of a safety valve.

_________________

Living well is the best revenge. --George Herbert


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:11 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
I think that's the gist of it, Eru. I'm not sure I like it either but it seems doable. If there is a limit of vetos, if the person who vetos must give their reasons for it, then I don't think people would use the right lightly.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:48 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Jny - I voted yes, but with the option of a veto right included.

If I could clarify why I support the veto option:

As I see it, is would be used only on the edge of a knife: If you feel that you cannot co-exist on the board with the person in question, you may use your once-only right of veto to keep them out.

Once only. I cannot imagine anyone here using that right frivolously; and I really cannot imagine anyone here horse-trading their veto ie colluding to veto on someone else's behalf. I've not seen any evidence that kind of sleight of hand here at all.

I originally considered that the reason for the veto could be kept private - as often such things are very, very personal - but I've been convinced by the discussion that it would be far more appropriate to be required to give a frank and compelling reason that such a desperate measure need be taken in order to overturn the preference of others.


Top
Profile Quote
Guruthostirn
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:50 am
That Weird American
Offline
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:30 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest U.S.
 
Hmm...everyone seems to be failing to see the "behind the scenes" angle...say, for example, person X comes up for nomination, and I veto them. Then person Y comes, and I want to veto them too...all I have to do is send an IM to someone I know, and see if they agree with me, and will use their veto. Considering I Live with one of our members (though she'd never use her power...she doesn't even think she even has the status to vote on invitations...does anyone want to reassure her on that?), have another for a sister, and are good friends with bunches of other...see where I'm going? There may be an individual veto limit, but that's pretty meaningless...

*sigh* I'm really starting to wish this was an open board...it would clear up SOOOOO many issues...

Nin, thanks for pointing out that difference...I hadn't really thought of the "I'll leave" angle...

_________________

That crazy American Jerk...

"No stop signs, speed limits, no body's gonna slow me down..."

"You can run, but you'll die tired." -- What the archer said to the knight.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:52 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
There's always potential for a veto to be abused, but part of the experiment here is to see how well we can deal transparently with one another so that people don't behave vindictively.

I mean, suppose I was mad at Eru and I vetoed Iavas to get at Eru? Theoretically I could do that ... but why would I ever get that mad at Eru if things were handled properly in the first place?

What are the odds that 50 people would vote yes and one would veto? How could it be that 50 people overlooked a problem that serious? Ok, maybe it's an intensely personal problem, but then, all we're doing is giving the veto-er a window of time in which to come to terms with the problem. When the board opens to the public, they'll have to deal.

Ax, I think you're right about the time frames corresponding, but I suspect that the board will be open to the public before the renewal of vetoes could become an issue.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Guruthostirn
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 1:56 am
That Weird American
Offline
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:30 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest U.S.
 
Who said asking someone else to use their veto is abuse? I don't see why that would be the case...since I'm fairly confident that anyone who rates a veto from one person has significantly pissed off some other people...

_________________

That crazy American Jerk...

"No stop signs, speed limits, no body's gonna slow me down..."

"You can run, but you'll die tired." -- What the archer said to the knight.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:01 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
And remember the vetoer would have to explain why they're vetoing. (that word looks weirder every time I type it). It wouldn't be all that easy to fake a reason for not wanting someone in...and Jny is right, we're based on trust so much already, this is just an extension. Nothing's wrong with asking someone if they agree with you that someone's invitation should be vetoed, but I hope that person wouldn't veto without feeling about it strongly.

Also- if we have 50 people for, and one against, it puts that person in the spotlight. They will have, like it or not, the label of 'the one who vetoed when we were inviting x'. That's not an easy position to accept. If people on this board are as fair as I believe they are and as invitation threads have shown so far, one will be able to veto without fearing being ostracised for it. But it will still be no light decision.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 3:53 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Guru - I'm sorry, I think you and I cross posted. I wasn't responding to your post but to someone above who asked about scenarios where the veto would be used inappropriately.

By 'abuse' I simply meant that the veto would be used disingenuously, as it could be of course, but I think that would only happen if the general climate deteriorated.

As far as asking someone else to veto on your behalf ... well, why not? They lose their own right to veto as a result. And they would have to state the problem you had as their reason for the veto, or else make something up. Will people be willing to fabricate? Will you be willing to be known to use multiple vetoes that way? More importantly, are there really multiple people that you dislike so much? :Q

We can say that vetoes are not good as a matter of principle ... the flavor of it is not so nice ... but it's hard for me to imagine much opportunity for flagrant misuse of veto power in the time remaining.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 4:04 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Jnyusa, the person above you referred to is Impenitent. <points to self>

Perhaps I need an avatar to be acknowledged?


Top
Profile Quote
enchantress
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 5:21 am
Sorcery in Action
Offline
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon 24 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: Ontario
 
Excellent discussion...

Im still on the fence over simple majority rules vs. simple majority but with the veto clause... thinking... will vote.

One thing though... since the vetoer (nice word Ro :D) will be required to give a reason... what would constitute a valid reason? In an instance where 50% or over want a person in... lets say that number is 80% even... but one person for example has a BIG personal problem with invitee X and feels he/she simply cannot coexist with X on b77... if the vetoer writes that, is that a valid reason? Or would valid reasons for a veto relate only to invitee X's general inability to get along with people or a personal style/ideas that are widely inappropriate to this board... ?
Yet if the latter is true, I cannot imagine that person garnering an 80% majority vote for approved entry.... :scratch
I hope Im not too confusing in what Im saying :P
Just wondering...

And while Im here, my two cents on the invite process - It works alright, Im really liking that we are trying to democratically decide how to make it uniform...
Yet when I think about it long and hard there is one part of this whole invite process I feel uneasy with... and that is the fact that these are basically threads discussing a person... and threads that are subsequently removed and never seen by the person once he/she gains entry to the site... I understand the reasoning behind this... yet it rubs me the wrong way a bit in a moral sense...
I understand this is thus far a gated community and existing members vote democratically on admissibility of others...I know slanderous things are not said in these threads... but the threads DO constitute discussion upon a person's value and ability to integrate with this community...a part of me feels that talking about others behind their back, even if nothing untrue or disrespectful is said, is a bit iffy if those people cannot ever see what was said or discussed...
Yet I do understand the damage that could be done if invite threads were visible to all for all time...ex. Person X gets admitted... sees thread in which they received a 70% YES vote but two posts by members A and B question the invite and seem to have voted "no" based on the posts they made... consequently, person X gets hurt feelings or harbours some antagonism for either person A or B and thats how nastyness starts...
Im just raising an issue that popped into my brain and more than anything else I guess Im trying to work it out for myself through writing... :oops:

~enchantress

_________________

Falling into Autumn... :)


Top
Profile Quote
Areanor
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 5:22 am
Sharpe-sighted
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 7:46 am
Location: Hyrule
 
I can't remember a single "no" on all those that had been invited and came in so far.

All those who got a single "no" were put in the waiting queue. And all these "no"s were explained by the no-sayer and the reasons were
accepted.

And usually there were more than one "no".....

Sorry, but I don't see the point in changing that.

I once saw a abstain vote - the abstainer said, "I would vote "no", because I feel uncomfortable, but go ahead, I don't mind posting with that invitee". As it was followed by a "no" some time after that, the person wasn't invited.

Like Guru, I think all we need is a timespan for people to come out and say "Nay, I feel uncomfortable with that person around at the time being" and explaining why. When the board opens, we have to deal with new and maybe unwelcome posters anyway.....

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 7:05 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
enchie, your musings on the ethics of discussing a person in a thread they will never be allowed to see are probably not dissimilar to those others have had (okay, I can't speak for others but I definitely felt this and it was one of the reasons I refrained from voting up until 2 days ago.

All I can say is that I've come to terms with it because through the experience of posting here and becoming more familiar with the process and the others participating in it, I have come to recognise that good will seems to be the guiding principle.


Top
Profile Quote
enchantress
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 7:54 am
Sorcery in Action
Offline
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon 24 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: Ontario
 
Thanks for replying, Impenitent :)

Yeah... I know and can feel there is good will here on the board and thats the guiding principle... and I understand the purpose and the way this process prevents potential damage from occuring...
I just have some silly little thing inside me that is more at ease with full disclosure... Im one of those people who would rather have the whole truth even if it isnt the prettiest...and I guess I am happiest when everyone has that right...
Anyhow... :P I will survive and somehow come to terms with this too I suppose... just thought I would put in my two cents that I've been thinking about in the last little while.

_________________

Falling into Autumn... :)


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 8:00 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I agree with the policy that new arrivals don't see their threads--not to protect the new arrivals' feelings, but so that people will feel free to be honest in the threads. That's the important thing.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 8:03 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Goodwill going hand in hand with honesty and tolerance :mrgreen: ... yep! That's the key here :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

... and all what Areanor said (and Dindraug earlier) :mrgreen: We've not done too badly up to now. It has worked pretty well, people did get invited, no one felt 'pushed' to leave over a 'controversial' invite because those received a 'post-poned'.
If we come to an agreement (and that's what it kind of looks to me right now 'glancing' over the posts rather than the poll) then with a single veto we're basically doing not an unsimilar thing as we've done so far.
Thing is, with all the explaining as to why someone vetoes, the veto then will stand no matter whether the explanation is deemed adequate (or whatever) or not until the day B77 goes public.
If we keep a simple yes/no (without the veto) but respect the no's with explanation as we've had so far then the 'case' could be re-opened again in a month (six weeks... two month) time. I don't see the possibility for that at all if we have a veto right in place (yeah - somewhat 'backtracking' of what I said earlier but each post gives food for thought ;) )

edit to add: and of course invite threads are deleted once the person gets in. That was agreed upon long ago exactly for the reasons you mention Primula

________________
Resident witch


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 4:00 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
jnyusa--

So in effect, a Veto is actually a "not until we go public" vote.

Hmmm. I think I'm OK with that, but I need to look at possible ramifications.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 118 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: