Voting thread etiquette

unibot

unibot

TNPer
I think that players should be allowed to say a sentence explaining their vote before voting, but in the voting thread. This way they can clearly vote with conscience and clarify their opinion without having to use a discussion thread where their opinions can get lost in the mess.
 
I don't agree. The discussion thread is there for the purpose of debate and expressing an opinion. If people feel the need to do that in the voting thread, it can get messy and disruptive.
There are two threads for a reason.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I don't agree. The discussion thread is there for the purpose of debate and expressing an opinion. If people feel the need to do that in the voting thread, it can get messy and disruptive.
There are two threads for a reason.
Click to expand...
Discussion =/= clarification, the one implies you're expected to respond. I think the one liners people were posting beside their vote served a purpose.
 
I feel my actions were perfectly justified, and there is a reason that discussion threads exist and are linked in the op of each vote. However I will quickly explain myself here;

a) The constitution grants me the right to use my discretion when no rules exist. This is clearly an area where no rules exist, so I have the legal authority to do this.

b) I had already warned people to stop, and your conversation on the IRC suggests to me you believe that this was a ploy to remove Nay votes. That is not so; Grosse decided to ignore the big bold red letters which were conveniently posted right above his vote - therefore he broke the rules and his vote was discounted as a result. It would not have mattered how he voted, I will respond the same. As Speaker I firmly believe I should be neutral in my actions and I won't break that policy.

c) As for my actual choice to take this actions; there are discussion threads for a reason. Not only does talking/campaigning/posting other than to vote make confusion for the Speaker, but it disrupts the vote and ignores that we have another thread dedicated to that sort of discussion. Not to mention that it is easily used as a last minute excuse to attempt to change indesicive voters minds by campaigning within the vote.
 
Kingborough:
c) As for my actual choice to take this actions; there are discussion threads for a reason. Not only does talking/campaigning/posting other than to vote make confusion for the Speaker, but it disrupts the vote and ignores that we have another thread dedicated to that sort of discussion. Not to mention that it is easily used as a last minute excuse to attempt to change indesicive voters minds by campaigning within the vote.
Click to expand...
Yes. Changing indecisive voters mind is a good idea. I fear this vote is going to be won on the basis that people who are not reading the discussion thread are just voting "AYE" and not think about the consequences of this -- it's just railroading through the entire issue of non-WA member exclusion.
 
You know how in RL there are laws preventing politicians from following voters into the booth? Yeah, it's like that.

Good job King.
 
Of course, all of the aye voters saying it's wrong. When it was the nay people trying to get the message out. *rolls his eyes*
 
unibot:
Of course, all of the aye voters saying it's wrong. When it was the nay people trying to get the message out. *rolls his eyes*
Click to expand...
My two cents: Both "aye" and "nay" voters had the opportunity to make their case in the discussion thread. "Aye" voters have likely been saying this is wrong because unlike some "nay" voters, they didn't try to make an argument for their side in the voting thread. I don't think it's a conspiracy to shut down "nay" voters and I don't think that's why the bill is passing. I think the bill is passing because more citizens in TNP are, regrettably, willing to give the Delegate great latitude on these matters regardless of what it means for others' civil rights -- or, occasionally, their own.

I hear what you're saying about people not reading the discussion thread, but if that's the case a) they're probably not going to read much in the voting thread either; and b) if RA members aren't bothering to read discussion threads TNP has much bigger problems than its WA voting policy.
 
Kingborough:
I feel my actions were perfectly justified, and there is a reason that discussion threads exist and are linked in the op of each vote. However I will quickly explain myself here;

a) The constitution grants me the right to use my discretion when no rules exist. This is clearly an area where no rules exist, so I have the legal authority to do this.

b) I had already warned people to stop, and your conversation on the IRC suggests to me you believe that this was a ploy to remove Nay votes. That is not so; Grosse decided to ignore the big bold red letters which were conveniently posted right above his vote - therefore he broke the rules and his vote was discounted as a result. It would not have mattered how he voted, I will respond the same. As Speaker I firmly believe I should be neutral in my actions and I won't break that policy.

c) As for my actual choice to take this actions; there are discussion threads for a reason. Not only does talking/campaigning/posting other than to vote make confusion for the Speaker, but it disrupts the vote and ignores that we have another thread dedicated to that sort of discussion. Not to mention that it is easily used as a last minute excuse to attempt to change indesicive voters minds by campaigning within the vote.
Click to expand...
:agree:

Stop complaining Unibot. There has always been two separate threads for discussion and voting. Keep the two separate. It has always been enforced that way.
 
Unibot, can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with you.

I also voted Aye. A very ardent Aye I might add.

I don't have a problem with someone trying to sway votes in a voting thread so long as they only post it within their vote post and not write a novel.

At the same time, I understand why the speaker would want to limit this kind of thing in the spirit of leaving the voting threads focused on votes and the debate threads focused on debate. I don't think there is a rule on this so the discretion falls to the Speaker.
 
Why is this concept so difficult? I support the speaker on this wholeheartedly - voting threads are for voting only, and simple comments can either spiral into a discussion or serve as a place to make comments which are not in a place where they can't be challenged.

Try to force a cultural shift into always reading the discussion thread before you vote, but voting threads are not for comments of any kind.
 
I did not vote Nay or Aye, Unibot so you don't have to disregard my opinion.

I disagree with the person who said stop complaining unibot - I think this thread is the perfect place for you to complain. I think people should be free to complain as much as they want to until it gets to the point where the admins are sick of them.

Anyway my opinion on the issue is voting threads are for voting only. The point of having a speaker is he does some form of ordering that we follow. As long as it's not political we are expected to tolerate this happily. I for one do.

So feel free to discuss and campaign. What you could also do is a commentary about your vote in the discussion thread. Then people will be sure where you stand. If people don't read the discussion thread, it's probably because they don't care about the issue!!
 
Abbey Anumia:
Why is this concept so difficult? I support the speaker on this wholeheartedly - voting threads are for voting only, and simple comments can either spiral into a discussion or serve as a place to make comments which are not in a place where they can't be challenged.

Try to force a cultural shift into always reading the discussion thread before you vote, but voting threads are not for comments of any kind.
Click to expand...
:agree: :winner:
 
I agree with the speaker on this matter. Naturally.

I doubt Grosse would disagree with the result BUT Unibot's post should have been edited to remove his campaigning and all of the irrelevant posts in that thread should have been deleted.

It's perhaps not enough to just say "any post after this point is bad" - if you apply a rule it should be applied equally to all in the thread.

This is just my opinion though.
 
Personally I think King showed some spine. He went up in my estimation.

There are too many people in TNP who think that they are above the petty rules of mortals. Where in fact, that only applies to me.
 
Personally I think King showed some spine. He went up in my estimation.

There are too many people in TNP who think that they are above the petty rules of mortals. Where in fact, that only applies to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top