Enough With The Polls

bonkey

Between a small handful of posters, we are getting a ton of carbon-copy or almost-identical threads, each of which is being presented as a poll.

This has to stop.

Firstly, I haven't seen more than a handful of fair, balanced polls on a topic where the poll could actually be of interest and relevance to the discussion in the past god-knows how long.

Secondly, and I don't know how to put this delicately, but this is a discussion forum - something which I'm not convinced everyone gets. There is no "winning" or "losing". Having more or less popular support here means absolutely nothing in terms of the rightness or wrongness of what you are saying.

Thirdly, I am utterly convinced that only a very, very few of these polls are being started by people who genuinely want to know the general feeling of others....and to be honest....the poll sizes aren't large enough to be in any way statistically meaningful anyway.

We've had complaints. We've had some comments on the "rules discussion" thread, and its now clear (to me) that this is something thats not going to just go away.

In the coming week, I will be discussing with the other mods what, if anything, should be done. We'll be willing to listen to suggestions (post them here) , but in the meantime - and let me be very clear on this - if anyone other than a mod of this forum (or an admin) starts a poll about what we should do, they will be immediately and permanently banned.

jc

Memnoch

i think 1 poll per user per week? or maybe 1 poll every two weeks?

if you mods wanna put in a bit more work there is always the option of any polls on this forum being approved by a mod b4 being posted, kind of like unregged posts.
so if someone wants to make a poll, they pm a mod, explaining the purpose of the poll and what options.

i guess it sounds a bit draconian but despertate times call for desperate measures? :P

SantaHoe

This should be a poll imo.

bonkey

Originally posted by SantaHoe
This should be a poll imo.

What outstandingly unpredicatbly funny wit you have there.

jc

Nuttzz

I am inclined to agree with you bonkey, however as a mod you probably have to read all the posts and threads where the rest of us can avoid the threads we have no interest in.

IMO it is a shame the why this forum has gone down hill over the last few months, every second post is about americans or iraq or americans in iraq, I know its a major political story but not the only one, and a lot of them are saying the same thing over and over, for example the iraqi prison abuse scandal is covered by 15 different threads, whats the point of that? perhaps a 1 issue 1 thread policy?

SantaHoe

Originally posted by bonkey
What outstandingly unpredicatbly funny wit you have there.

I was going for "troll", but that'll do nicely.

alleepally

Re : Polls.

All the reason against polls would seem to indicate that there is no point in having them. So why not just disable the functionality on certain forums. Failing that, a poll needs to be approved - can that be done within the software - i.e. a thread with a poll goes to a mod first and then released to the thread?

Re : 1 issue, 1 thread as mentioned by Nuttzz. There are obvious benefits to this but there is a point where a thread just becomes meaningless for anyone who joins after a certain point. They either repeat what has been said before or take out of context a point that someone else has made as it might relate to a comment a number of pages previously.

Re: Everything being about the US and Iraq as mentioned by Nuttzz. If this is what is exercising peoples minds and they feel strongly about it then so be it, no?

arcadegame2004

I am utterly convinced that only a very, very few of these polls are being started by people who genuinely want to know the general feeling of others....and to be honest....the poll sizes aren't large enough to be in any way statistically meaningful anyway.

I wonder would some of these "complaints" have come from those on the losing argument of such polls?

Hobbes

or if could be those making stupid polls ruining it for others. I'd say you know who you are but judging from the polls/posts probably you don't.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I wonder would some of these "complaints" have come from those on the losing argument of such polls?

Actually, the complaints typically come in when the polls are started. And they're usually along the lines of "WTF is arcadegame doing launching another stupid poll on this issue. He seems to be trying to dodge the threads where he's getting his arse kicked trying to argue the point by starting polls instead"

This is why I've a problem with teh polls myself actually. Increasingly its being used by people as a mechanism to avoid discussion, replacing it with a mentality only slightly removed from "look how popular meh side is. I R TEH RULE! 13370RZ!" instead.

One need only look at the post I'm responding to as evidence of this :rolleyes:

jc

swiss

Polls and politics are closely linked. It would be ridiculous to suggest that we should discontinue the use of polls altogether. Yet over the last few weeks, we have seen polls about practically every issue and every candidate that are present in the local and European elections. Polls in this forum are rarely representative since the numbers of people who vote in such polls are generally to small to represent the posters of boards.ie or indeed the wider community as a whole. Also, having too many polls can lead to a 'poll weariness' where people do not want to register their vote since they have been asked to do so on several occasions already.

I think After Hours has a reasonably good policy. Monty advocated that anyone who posted a pointless poll would immediately pick up a one week ban. Anyone who subsequently posted such a pointless poll would receive a 2 week ban. This would then extend to a month, two months, etc. The result? A vastly reduced number of polls.

Of course, one can argue that all these polls have a point. So what I would suggest is that unless a poll is of significant interest to people in this forum, we should adopt this policy, and hand out a 1 week ban to posters who contravene this moratorium. If the poll function is abused furthur we could extend this exile to longer periods.

bonkey

The flaw with such a rule is that its entirely subjective, and also something thats impossible to police "up front".

If the mods feel a poll is relevant, but there isn't a single vote on it...then it was clearly worthless. Should it result in a ban?

What about a poll the mods feel is utterly trite, but which has the highest response of any poll in years? Should that result in a ban?

The solutions I'd prefer would be more along of the lines of "approval first".

'xample....start a thread, send a PM to a mod asking for a poll to be added to said thread (possibly using the "Report" button cause it sends to all three mods). If a mod / the mods agree(s), you get your poll. If not, you don't. The advantage being that you're required to start the thread as a discussion regardless

Any poll started by any other method would be closed, and a warning/ban issued.

Personally, I could live fine without polls, but I accept what Swiss is saying about them being relevant here and arguably even important. But I think that this is only the case if they are limited, and used to enhance discussion, rather than replace it.

jc

Rock Climber

Polls in this forum are rarely representative since the numbers of people who vote in such polls are generally to small to represent the posters of boards.ie or indeed the wider community as a whole.

Why not ask the admins to impliment a VB rule if possible that you must vote on all polls before you can log onto boardsie
Compulsary voting yay!!

The solutions I'd prefer would be more along of the lines of "approval first".

I would agree with Bonkey there, a simple pm to the mods from anyone that wishes to post a poll.
The current rash are an eyesore

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
'xample....start a thread, send a PM to a mod asking for a poll to be added to said thread (possibly using the "Report" button cause it sends to all three mods). If a mod / the mods agree(s), you get your poll. If not, you don't. The advantage being that you're required to start the thread as a discussion regardless

Any poll started by any other method would be closed, and a warning/ban issued.

jc

Expect to be banning users for a while so. They don't read the rules now, what makes you think they will in the future? The only way to introduce this affectifly is to modify the BB code.

However I think it brings in an equal amount of subjectiveity you dislike about swiss's idea. Instead of montys approach (to banning after the affect) you suggest that you/gandalf and swiss should "decide" what is/is not valid for a poll. I fail to see the difference in your suggestion, especially when it comes down to the area of subjectiveity.

Originally posted by bonkey
Personally, I could live fine without polls, but I accept what Swiss is saying about them being relevant here and arguably even important. But I think that this is only the case if they are limited, and used to enhance discussion, rather than replace it.

What exactly is the issue with the polls? Is it the cosmetic affect. From what I have seen here a poll is started, some discussion ensues, and the poll is forgoten (or becomes an after thought) as the discussion continues on the minutia (sp?) of opionions of those on the for and against sides.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
However I think it brings in an equal amount of subjectiveity you dislike about swiss's idea. Instead of montys approach (to banning after the affect) you suggest that you/gandalf and swiss should "decide" what is/is not valid for a poll. I fail to see the difference in your suggestion, especially when it comes down to the area of subjectiveity.

The difference is that Monty's works like this :

Post your poll. If the mods decide its sufficiently meaningless, you're banned.

My suggestion works like this :

Ask if you can post a poll. If the mods say no, you can start a discussion on the exact same topic instead.

I accept that our rules regarding politeness, civility, etc are not the most crystal-clearly defined set imaginable, but I just can't see how we could have anything even as clear as them in terms of what is, and is not, acceptable in terms of polls. In the absence of that, then surely it would be unfair to say "we won't tell you what is acceptable, but unacceptable polls will get you banned"???

What exactly is the issue with the polls?

The issue? You mean "the issues" :

- We get a number of complaints about polls in general. As already evidenced on this thread, and the discussion on the rules, a lot of people just don't like them and feel they not only serve no purpose here, but they actively disimprove matters.

- we get specific complaints about individuals poll-spamming, which is almost exclusively when there's a chunk of threads already on the subject open and where the poll does nothing except split one thread's worth of discussion into two carbon-copy versions.

- we get occasional complaints (but its more common to see it in-thread) where the topic of options which should have been on the poll get more discussion than the topic itself.

Then there's the other issues that I've already outlined in this thread. You preumably either didn't see them, or just didn't deign them worthy of even acknowledging or refuting, but they're still issues with polls.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
The difference is that Monty's works like this :

Post your poll. If the mods decide its sufficiently meaningless, you're banned.

My suggestion works like this :

Ask if you can post a poll. If the mods say no, you can start a discussion on the exact same topic instead.

I understand exactly how your suggestion works, thanks for the clarification anyhow, it still does not address the issue of your(the mods) opinion being any less subjective than the opinon used in AH. The fact that the opinion is acted upon pre or post posting if a poll is deemed "silly" is beside the point.

I accept that our rules regarding politeness, civility, etc are not the most crystal-clearly defined set imaginable, but I just can't see how we could have anything even as clear as them in terms of what is, and is not, acceptable in terms of polls.

The clarity of the rules is not the point I was making. with regards to your reference to civility I take it as a given that if, for example, I was to say "such and such is an arsehole and his opinion stinks" on any board here that that would be unacceptable behaviour and a warning/banning would ensue. What you are suggesting here is banning a person because they are ignorant of the fact that a mod(s) believe that their poll is unworthy of a placement on this board.

In the absence of that, then surely it would be unfair to say "we won't tell you what is acceptable, but unacceptable polls will get you banned"???

It's the "telling" part I would like explained. How do you propose to tell a user that a basic function supplied for use on this board must be pre-moderated or they face a possible ban? By using a sticky? Would the solution not be simplier to remove the option all together?

- We get a number of complaints about polls in general. As already evidenced on this thread, and the discussion on the rules, a lot of people just don't like them and feel they not only serve no purpose here, but they actively disimprove matters.

I have seen 3 "complaints" on this thread. Hardly conclusive. How does a poll disimprove matters?

- we get specific complaints about individuals poll-spamming, which is almost exclusively when there's a chunk of threads already on the subject open and where the poll does nothing except split one thread's worth of discussion into two carbon-copy versions.

Well then ban them, if they are spamming. Or if poll spamming is against the rules. I see people spam threads. I see people spoil threads. I see people start pointless threads etc..... What next? a ban on thread starting?

- we get occasional complaints (but its more common to see it in-thread) where the topic of options which should have been on the poll get more discussion than the topic itself.

there is a big yellow link at the edge of every thread. It says that a moderator can edit a poll. Why can they not pm the mod and ask for the poll to be changed?

Then there's the other issues that I've already outlined in this thread. You preumably either didn't see them, or just didn't deign them worthy of even acknowledging or refuting, but they're still issues with polls.

jc

Oh I saw them ok. My question was addressed to the politics fora in general. I would like to see others opinions, apart from your own.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
I understand exactly how your suggestion works, thanks for the clarification anyhow, it still does not address the issue of your(the mods) opinion being any less subjective than the opinon used in AH. The fact that the opinion is acted upon pre or post posting if a poll is deemed "silly" is beside the point.

Its not beside the point. It is the point. I'm acknowledging that it is impossible to be objective or to have objectivity, and that the best resulting solution is to choose a subjective one which is the most reasonable.

Your option is "take a guess, get it wrong, and your banned".
My option is "ask, and find out if its ok".

I really can't see how the two are no different, simply because they share the same flaw of being subjective. In one, the only way you can be sure and avoid bannage is simply never to post a poll. In the other, the only way you can be sure and avoid bannage is to do what you're asked to do....and check with the mod first.

But fine...if you see them as no different to each other, lets just agree to disagree.

It's the "telling" part I would like explained. How do you propose to tell a user that a basic function supplied for use on this board must be pre-moderated or they face a possible ban? By using a sticky? Would the solution not be simplier to remove the option all together?

I'm not an admin. I don't control the source and what it can do, nor how boards.ie is configured, nor how the individiual forums within it are configured.

So, for me, it is not particularly simple to do anything that involves changing the system, and it also leaves me in a situation where I would have to ask others to make a change, which - if it needed further tweaking, or wasn't quite what I wanted, or was just plain wrong - I could end up wanting repeatedly changed, and/or could simply throw out. I'm asking them to do all the hard work until I get something I want the way I want it.

Conversly, it is ridiculously easy for me to treat this rule (should we make one) like every other rule we already have, and enforce it using the same techniques that we already use. I can tweak and change it, without affecting the admins or coders. I can get it the way I want it by my efforts.

As for "making it work", when you (rightly) point out how few people read the stickied rules.....

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we generally don't ban first-time-posters for breaking the rules. We point them at the rules and ask them to read them. After that, theye've no excuse. I don't see how implementing a new rule for polls would be any less workable or possible than any rule we currently enforce, nor do I see why it would be preferable to change how the system is coded/configured.

How does a poll disimprove matters?

Am I going to have to join the dots again, only to have you say "well, I knew that, but...." again?

Polls are increasingly becoming disruptive in the stated opinions of at least two of our three mods, as well as publically by some posters, and privately (i.e. reporting posts, etc.) by others.

They are increasingly being seen as disruptive - in a number of ways I've already mentioned, and that you didn't disagree with (nor did you agree - you just noted it had been said and then discounted it as an answer because of who it was from) - particularly because of their becoming more and more and more common.

Well then ban them, if they are spamming. Or if poll spamming is against the rules.

Oh FFS, Hobart. This is what we're trying to discuss - at what point should does "poll-use" become "poll-abuse", what should we do about it, and how. After questioning the why and the how, you're now jsut saying "and why even discuss this. Just ban them if its against the rules".

I see people spam threads. I see people spoil threads. I see people start pointless threads etc..... What next? a ban on thread starting?

Well, gee. If and when people start using the "report this post" to complain about the stuff, or PMing the mods to discuss/complain about whats happening to the point where we feel there is an identifiable trait which can be dealt with........

Yeah, at that point, we'll start thinking about doing something like...ohhh...I dunno...what we're trying to do here. You know...asking for thoughts and opinions on how we might improve matters.

Oh I saw them ok. My question was addressed to the politics fora in general. I would like to see others opinions, apart from your own.

I'm sorry. I got distracted by the fact you were quoting a post of mine and apparently answering it. I didn't realise you were - in fact - not answering it and talking to everyone except me. I also didn't realise that me telling you that the mods have received a number of complaints actually counts as me expressing my opinion, rather than passing on the fact that others have already made their opinions clear, albeit in a manner which you don't necessarily see.

Thanks for clearing all that up, though.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Its not beside the point. It is the point. I'm acknowledging that it is impossible to be objective or to have objectivity, and that the best resulting solution is to choose a subjective one which is the most reasonable.

Ok so. The fact that your subjectivity happens pre or post posting is the point of this thread then, it is not about should polls be allowed or not.

Your option is "take a guess, get it wrong, and your banned".
My option is "ask, and find out if its ok".

Maybe you would like to point out where I actually advocated that option.

I really can't see how the two are no different, simply because they share the same flaw of being subjective.

I actually don't see a problem with the 2 options either. However it was you who said the following

The flaw with such a rule is that its entirely subjective,

and then in this post you say

and that the best resulting solution is to choose a subjective one

Hobart

In one, the only way you can be sure and avoid bannage is simply never to post a poll. In the other, the only way you can be sure and avoid bannage is to do what you're asked to do....and check with the mod first.

And I would contend that those options are not the best way "to avoid bannage". My point was (is) that you should request the modification of the BB software to include a pre-moderation option on those who choose to include a poll with their posting.

I'm not an admin. I don't control the source and what it can do, nor how boards.ie is configured, nor how the individiual forums within it are configured

Let me point you in the direction of feedback-suggestions. You can suggest the modification there.

So, for me, it is not particularly simple to do anything that involves changing the system, and it also leaves me in a situation where I would have to ask others to make a change, which - if it needed further tweaking, or wasn't quite what I wanted, or was just plain wrong - I could end up wanting repeatedly changed, and/or could simply throw out. I'm asking them to do all the hard work until I get something I want the way I want it.

See above point.

Conversly, it is ridiculously easy for me to treat this rule (should we make one) like every other rule we already have, and enforce it using the same techniques that we already use. I can tweak and change it, without affecting the admins or coders. I can get it the way I want it by my efforts.

But therin lies the flaw bonkey. I will repeat my previous question. How are you going to inform the posters on this board that polls have to be premoderated?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we generally don't ban first-time-posters for breaking the rules. We point them at the rules and ask them to read them. After that, theye've no excuse. I don't see how implementing a new rule for polls would be any less workable or possible than any rule we currently enforce, nor do I see why it would be preferable to change how the system is coded/configured.

So how would a decision be made on the validity of a poll?

Am I going to have to join the dots again, only to have you say "well, I knew that, but...." again?

Polls are increasingly becoming disruptive in the stated opinions of at least two of our three mods, as well as publically by some posters, and privately (i.e. reporting posts, etc.) by others.

They are increasingly being seen as disruptive - in a number of ways I've already mentioned, and that you didn't disagree with (nor did you agree - you just noted it had been said and then discounted it as an answer because of who it was from) - particularly because of their becoming more and more and more common.

Yes. Seen as how you have offered to do it. I would like you to join the dots for me and show me how and where a poll has become disruptive to a thread. I would also like you to point out where you have "joined the dots" for me in the past. I would also like you to cease from the thinely veiled insults and the manner in which you have responded to me so far. TBH, if you were not a mod I would report you.to the mods of this board

Oh FFS, Hobart. This is what we're trying to discuss -

Oh FFS Bonkey make that clear so. AFAICS you are talking about banning polls altogether. What I was refering to was the abuse of a poll, in retort to your point of polls being spammed. Spam is Spam no matter if a poll/thread is spammed. It should be cut out and the user in question banned. Again I can see no mention of spam in your initial thread FFS.

at what point should does "poll-use" become "poll-abuse",

At whatever point you deem acceptable, you are the moderator after all. What do you mean by poll abuse? What examples do you have where a poll was abused? How did you deal with the abusers in the past? If this is what we are debateing maybe we should have some precedent. what should we do about it, and how.

Well, gee. If and when people start using the "report this post" to complain about the stuff, or PMing the mods to discuss/complain about whats happening to the point where we feel there is an identifiable trait which can be dealt with........

Are you saying people dont use this functionality?

I'm sorry. I got distracted by the fact you were quoting a post of mine and apparently answering it. I didn't realise you were - in fact - not answering it and talking to everyone except me. I also didn't realise that me telling you that the mods have received a number of complaints actually counts as me expressing my opinion, rather than passing on the fact that others have already made their opinions clear, albeit in a manner which you don't necessarily see.

Thanks for clearing all that up, though.

jc

Apology accepted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Let me point you in the direction of feedback-suggestions. You can suggest the modification there.

I said I don't think that getting the change to work the way it is decided we want it to, and subsequent tweaking of how we work that solution would be as easy to do through getting someone else to change their code at our bequest is as easy as changing our rules that we enforce and treating this the same way as any other rule we enforce.

I didn't realise that translated to "I don't know how its done".

But therin lies the flaw bonkey. I will repeat my previous question. How are you going to inform the posters on this board that polls have to be premoderated?

In the same way we inform posters on this board that insults against fellow posters aren't tolerated, and the same way that we inform posters on this board of every other rule that they may appear unaware of.

Its simple - we provide the (standardised across all forums on boards.ie?) preventative approach of giving people a stickied thread with the rules in them, and we generally give warnings to new posters on first offences, with a pointed suggestion to read the rules because - just like in the real world - we won't accept ignorance of the rules as an offence.

So how would a decision be made on the validity of a poll?

A poll which was posted by someone who hadn't read the rules and hadn't requested it first? I'd imagine in the same way we deal with anything else posted by people who haven't bothered to read the rules and find themselves on the wrong side of them.

Firstly - and by definition - if we were to decide on a policy of "pre-authorisation", there is no question of validity. An unauthorised poll is invalid. Just as personal attacks on other posters are invalid.

Now, the real question - I guess - is what to do with invalid polls

Here, I should point out that I never claimed to have a completed, fully decided implementation that I wanted to force on anyone. So lets not bill this as any sort of fait accompli - this is my current thoughts on what might be a workable system.

So, anyway, I would imagine that it would be a choice between simply closing all such threads, closing just the poll leaving the thread alone), or judging it on a case-by-case basis, but still issuing bans for people who persisted in posting unauthorised polls after the rules had been cleared to them

I would like you to join the dots for me and show me how and where a poll has become disruptive to a thread.

Well, that would be where I've received complaints people reporting the creation of a poll where a thread (or threads) discussing exactly the same thing was already in progress.

I would also like you to cease from the thinely veiled insults and the manner in which you have responded to me so far. TBH, if you were not a mod I would report you.to the mods of this board

Then please report me to the admins, or to one of the other mods.

[/b]AFAICS you are talking about banning polls altogether. [/B][/QUOTE]

Where?

The only place where I mentioned getting rid of them was in a post where I offered a system I'd prefer over Swiss' solution, and in a sentence which continued to say :
but I accept what Swiss is saying about them being relevant here and arguably even important.

Perosnally, yes, I'd love to see them gone. As a mod, I accept that they have a place and a purpose here, but I'd like to see them used a bit more thoughtfully.

retort to your point of polls being spammed. Spam is Spam no matter if a poll/thread is spammed. It should be cut out and the user in question banned.

Maybe we mean different things. Poll-spamming - to me - is kicking up large number of polls in a short amount of time. Typically happens with relatively new posters, with too much enthusiasm who want to ask n flavours of the same question, or n questions about the same issue, and think that a poll is a BRILLIANT way to do that without actually requiring much input from anyone.

You don't tend to see as often it in non-poll form (thread-spamming), because there are fewer people who ar ewilling - at the outset - to get involved in that many discsussions.

But asking that many questions in poll form? Easy, and does happen.

And there is nothing in the rules to prveent this, or even discourage it. So our hands are currently tied.....and I believe that all three see it as either being a problem - or becoming a problem - that we can do without.

At whatever point you deem acceptable, you are the moderator after all.

This is where I get confused. I started this thread asking for opinions to help the mods decide if somethign needs doing, and if so, what. By getting a feeling for what is wanted by the users, and combinging that with how we see it affecting our moderation, we can hopefully come up to an acceptable middle ground.

You seem to be telling me on one hand that I should just make up my mind being the mod, and on the other you seem interested in discussing the issue in terms of whether or not something needs doing and if so, what. From what I can gather, its because you don't think anything needs changing, because its not a problem for you.

What do you mean by poll abuse?

Personally?

1) "Re-starting" discussions by starting another thread more-or-less the same as the existing one which doesn't have a poll

2) Posting a poll where there's a rather similar one already open

3) "Poll-spamming" as outlined above.

What examples do you have where a poll was abused?

Hobart, if you see no problem with the polls that have been riddling the forum in the past couple of weeks, then clearly you have no problems with the system as it is.

I'm happy for you.

Others do, and have complained. They feel there are too many, that polls are being used in the manner I have outlined above, and that this detracts from the forum in general.

Now, if - as you say - polls are just cosmetic, then surely it would be a better solution for me to keep happy those who think they're not cosmetic and limit their use? Wouldn't it keep more people happy? After all, I haven't seen anyone in here yet arguing that restrictions on polls are a bad thing for any reason.

How did you deal with the abusers in the past?

We don't have rules which let us do anything about it, so there's been nothing to do.

Thats why we want to change things.

Are you saying people dont use this functionality?

Not as much as they like to complain about bad moderation, no.

Its amazing how much stuff isn't worth getting "hot and bothered" enough to complain to the mods to, but is worth dragging back up in later posts either to respond to or to complain to the mods at that point for not having done something.

People have started complaining in this manner about the number and same-ness of the polls. Therefore, the mods are considering their complaints, and considering a change of rules to try and rectify what is seen as the problem.

Regardless....you were asking "why not X" as some continuance of our rule-change? Because its not complained about....so either its not a problem, or people aren't bothered enough to consider it a problem they want something done about.

jc

jc

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Its not beside the point. It is the point. I'm acknowledging that it is impossible to be objective or to have objectivity, and that the best resulting solution is to choose a subjective one which is the most reasonable.

While absolute objectivity is impossible to get (it drove me mad running the General Election Board, so I just handy out 1 week bans like candy).

I'm not sure how to achieve it, but some restraint is needed on the part of the pollsters. Whether there can be a code hack or just bannings, I don't know.

Hobart

Bonkey,

maybe you should try to address my points instead of pulling many of my quotes completely out of context. You have already accused me of advocating something I plainly did not, and yet when I ask where, you completly ignore it. You accuse a fellow moderators option/suggestion of being flawed because of the issue of subjectiveity, and then you go on to lawd a subjective soloution as the best one? *boggle* You then make a smart-ass remark about "joining the dots" for me again, when I then ask you to do so you come up with this gem

Well, that would be where I've received complaints people reporting the creation of a poll where a thread (or threads) discussing exactly the same thing was already in progress.

Why don't you just link to all these threads which have been disrupted by polls? I'm not asking you who said what in any pm. If polls are "disruptive" show me where.

swiss

Okay, perhaps it's time to step in. Hobart, I understand your position, but I think you can outline that position without being so confrontational. Similarly, I notice more than a little condescension in bonkeys posts. It's not helpful, and only helps fuel dissention.

After giving the matter some thought, I understand that some people might not see a problem with the polls. My main issue is that they tend to be 'thread stealers' where they are simply phrasing a debate already taking place in another thread in poll format. They can also, as bonkey pointed out, be used as a focal point for debates, for example if more people vote for one option, then some may claim that that side has "won". Won what specifically? An insignificant vbulletin poll, where the poll is frequently less than 50? Other reasons for not wanting them are cosmetic, it is an eyesore to see them popping up all over the front page.

The problem of course is how to deal with them. If a moderator pre-approves all polls, how can we be sure that every poll of interest or relevance is included, or conversely, how do we know that a trite poll won't slip through? My own suggestion of banning users who post pointless or trite polls is no less subjective, and it may fail to take into consideration certain mitigating factors, such as the proximity to an election or referendum.

I've decided to change tack, and advocate a less interventionist approach on an interim basis. I would suggest amending the rules to include the guideline that if one were to post a poll, one should think very carefully about posting it. Is this poll really of interest to people? Will it add anything to the discussion or debate? Has this issue already arisen recently? This approach relies on the posters own discretion as opposed to a moderators, and may cut down significantly on the polls. The problem of course is to make this guideline sufficiently visible to posters, perhaps by including it in the charter or adding in an extra 'sticky', perhaps temporarily.

If people fail to follow this guideline, then perhaps a more 'hands on' approach may be required, such as that which bonkey suggested.

Hobbes

I prefer montys method.. it requires the poster to use their head before posting a poll.

Hobart

Originally posted by swiss
Okay, perhaps it's time to step in. Hobart, I understand your position, but I think you can outline that position without being so confrontational. Similarly, I notice more than a little condescension in bonkeys posts. It's not helpful, and only helps fuel dissention.

I don't want to get into a childish he said/ she said type slanging match here. But I think bonkeys behaviour on this thread has been reprehensable (sp?) and his position as a moderator on this board only compounds this. There was no call nor need for him to reply to me in the manner in which he did.

Anyhow, in relation to polls. I think your approach is the fairest/easily workable.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
You have already accused me of advocating something I plainly did not, and yet when I ask where, you completly ignore it.

And then you go and admit to Swiss that it is indeed the option you prefer. Maybe you could just accept that I read between the lines and figured this out in advance?

If not, then obviously I misread something you said and made an incorrect assumption.

You accuse a fellow moderators option/suggestion of being flawed because of the issue of subjectiveity, and then you go on to lawd a subjective soloution as the best one? *boggle*

I ignored it because I've better things to do than get involved in a semantic argument after I've gone to reasonable effort to clarify what I meant, in a topic where what I was looking for was suggestions, not arguments over my choice of words.

But seeing as you don't seem to want to let it go : the original - albeit badly worded - point was that in terms of posting a poll, Monty's approach does not let you know in advance whether or not it is acceptable, whereas mine does. In one, you have no way of knowing whether or not your poll will lead to a ban. In the other, you either know before you post it that it will or will not lead to a ban, or you don't know the rules. To me, that means that in my proposal, warnings/bans are objective - you receive them for a specific, well-defined action : that of posting a poll without receiving authorisation to do so. No ifs, buts or maybes. Monty's system is subjective - you have to guess what the mod will make of it before you post.

Yes, in Monty's system you could PM the mod to be sure...but then you're basically implementing my proposal as a "workaround" to regain the same level of objectivity anyway, and have the added overhead of now having to support both systems.

The reason I didn't clarif this before was that I didn't think it mattered to the point I was making whether I had said "more subjective", "less preferable" or anything else, and like I said - I was looking for suggestions, not semantic arguments.

If polls are "disruptive" show me where.

You know, I was all set to do this, and then I noticed that while you tell me "do what you like, you're the moderator", you tell Swiss that you actually do have an opinion on what should be done - which is what I was trying to get in the first place.

So clearly, its a waste of both of our times to continue this. I'll not get the answer one of the other mods will get anyway, and I'll spend a lot more time and effort trying to get it.

If you have any other thoughts, please share them with one of the other mods - they seem more able to have a straightforward discussion with you without the need to prove everything they say before you'll answer the question that was originally asked.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
And then you go and admit to Swiss that it is indeed the option you prefer. Maybe you could just accept that I read between the lines and figured this out in advance?

Your perception seems to know no bounds. I was actually refering to the option outlined in his most recent posting, in which he himself admits to changing tact. Then again you probably knew that already

If not, then obviously I misread something you said and made an incorrect assumption.

We all know what they say about assumptions. Ok Fair enuf. Let me make it clearer so. Please do not assume I am infering anything on this or any other board unless I come out and advocate it. I will offer you and other users the same courtesy

I ignored it because I've better things to do than get involved in a semantic argument after I've gone to reasonable effort to clarify what I meant, in a topic where what I was looking for was suggestions, not arguments over my choice of words.

Look bonkey. You and I realise that this is only a BB. Ok things should not be taken "literaly" and I am far from one who pratices the best written english. However I simply will not let a blatant contradiction go, such as was evidenced by your posting, without commenting. Ok I accept your "clarification", but don't blame me for pulling you up on it.

You know, I was all set to do this, and then I noticed that while you tell me "do what you like, you're the moderator", you tell Swiss that you actually do have an opinion on what should be done - which is what I was trying to get in the first place.

And there you go again pulling my quotations completely out of context. *sigh* . My "do what you like" reference was in direct, and I will repeat direct, response to a point you raised with reference to spamming.

So clearly, its a waste of both of our times to continue this. I'll not get the answer one of the other mods will get anyway, and I'll spend a lot more time and effort trying to get it.

There you go again off to the land of assumptia again.

If you have any other thoughts, please share them with one of the other mods - they seem more able to have a straightforward discussion with you without the need to prove everything they say before you'll answer the question that was originally asked.jc

I will share them with whom I choose. It's amazing when you have a civil and constructive response to an argument how much better the thread/discussion develops. Mabye it's a lesson some can learn from.

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
I've decided to change tack, and advocate a less interventionist approach on an interim basis.

But this seems to be an approach of "please do what we ask, but if you don't, nothing will happen" ???

Surely - at the very least - we will need to point people at the rules (or wherever we put this) when they post a thread which we feel doesn't take this into account, in case they aren't actually aware of the point (as we do with regular posters and new rule changes, and as we do with new posters and the rules in general).

If we're going to that, then we also need to be clear in the rules (or wherever) that even though we're asking you (the poster) to do this, and have maybe pointed you at the rules, if you decide to ignore us and continue as you were, we won't do anything about it.

This approach relies on the posters own discretion as opposed to a moderators, and may cut down significantly on the polls.

Hey....I'm willing to try anything. I'm just skeptical of the effectiveness of "non-rule rules" in general, and thats what I see this as.

The problem of course is to make this guideline sufficiently visible to posters, perhaps by including it in the charter or adding in an extra 'sticky', perhaps temporarily.

I'd say put it in with the existing rules (the charter). I don't see any benefit in having another sticky to clutter up the place, nor do I think it woul dhave any lasting benefit if it were not in a stickied thread which we could refer people to.

A similar option - which I would be equally (or even more) skeptical of - is to simply include some sort of "preamble" in the rules/charter about the intention for this forum - what it is and is not about etc. Equally as unbinding as your "request" idea, but not limited strictly to a stance on polls.

jc

mayordenis

beuracracy in all its glory a couple of poll's do not hurt anybody i say to many pollless threads.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by mayordenis
beuracracy in all its glory a couple of poll's do not hurt anybody i say to many pollless threads.

What?

mike65

Priceless thread, if you skip through at speed it reads just like any other here - gratuitous quoting, bickering he said/she said, and most posts from only a couple of members....

Mike.

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey:


Hey....I'm willing to try anything. I'm just skeptical of the effectiveness of "non-rule rules" in general, and thats what I see this as.

Perhaps I should explain my reasoning.

The majority of polls that have been posted here are by members that are shall we say newer to these boards, and perhaps a little more zealous about posting than some other posters. In fact, despite the fact that polls can be such a nuisance there is little evidence that such polls are deliberately disruptive. You can accuse me of being naive, but I think many polls are posted since such newer members, not knowing the views of the other posters, want to do so in the easiest manner possible (i.e through a poll) without knowing how potentially annoying such a poll can be.

A sticky clearly pointing out how much of a nuisance polls can be gets around this problem. If a relative newcomer posts a pointless poll, he can no longer fall back on this defence. If that poster cannot read the thread on top clearly labelled "read before posting" then I would be far less willing to give that poster leeway in this regard.

Another reason why I prefer this approach is that I don't want to constantly deal with requests from people wanting to know if such and such a poll is okay to post. Call me lazy (or if you're politically correct - "convenience orientated"), but I think that the approach I have advocated has a reasonable to good chance of working, with a minimum of fuss or administrative overhead on our part.

Yet another reason why I prefer this approach is that - increasingly - we are beginning to dictate to people what is and what is not okay to post. I much prefer to leave a set of common sense guidelines and hope that such common sense prevails. Of course occasionally we have people who simply don't post that way, and that's where we step in. Having a blanket "run this past us first" ideology can only discourage posters. In this particular case I accept that this is the desired effect, but I also think that as a precedent, I feel uncomfortable with this philosophy.

Victor

Originally posted by swiss
Call me lazy (or if you're politically correct - "convenience orientated"),

"Differently prioritised"

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
There you go again off to the land of assumptia again.

In fairness, either I can assume that it is a waste of our time to continue, or I can assume that it isn't In either case, I'm in the land of assumptia, and in either case I'm doing what you asked me to have the courtesy not to do.

But allow me take that comment to mean that I'm wrong assuming its a waste of time continuing this dicussion.

If thats not what you meant, and you do think it is a waste of time continuing this dicussion, then please just ignore this mail....I don't want to waste any more of your time.

So...where are all these disruptive influences? Well, see, I've been thinking some more on that, and here's the thing....I'm trying to figure out what - if anything - is the best thing to do regarding polls and the complaints we've received. The best way that I see of doing this is if people tell me what they want, based on how they perceive the issue - on how they perceive the polls.

If someone doesn't see a problem with polls as is, then I'd prefer a suggestion based on that perception (and the knowledge that others have voiced problems with polls), rather than me trying to alter your perception of whether or not there is a problem.

Analysing the specifics of the problem will only cause people to look at polls more closely than they do on a day-to-day basis. But all I'm trying to do is make the way people see things on a day-to-day basis as good as possible for as many as possible, so I don't honestly see any benefit in such close analysis.

If someone thinks polls are the coolest thing on the planet and we should have more of them, I want to hear that. I don't want to try and convince them we have too many polls and ask what we should do as a result. I want them to know that some people think we have too many polls, and when they take that information and their own opinion into consideration, what they think - if anything - should be done.

Similarly for people who want no polls, fewer polls, more balanced polls, whatever. I'm not trying to change people's perception of the polls and their worth.

I'm trying to find out what - if anything - they would like to see changed, or what they would see as a reasonable compromise knowing that others would like to see change.

Mabye it's a lesson some can learn from.

Maybe indeed.

jc