There will probably be other elections in the future.
if lady appears to spin clockwise vote for baby finland, if counterclockwise jools
germanjoey posted:
the only restriction right now is not me, khamsek, or stegosaurus, as one rule is that if you're editing the frontpage, you can't be a moderator.
There's a front page?
infrateal posted:
im tempted to vote badcrumble for hat trick of ell effs but his absenteeism is merely mitigated by mod hat
if lady appears to spin clockwise vote for baby finland, if counterclockwise jools
it always moves clockwise
infrateal posted:
im tempted to vote badcrumble for hat trick of ell effs but his absenteeism is merely mitigated by mod hat
if lady appears to spin clockwise vote for baby finland, if counterclockwise jools
i don't see any lady all i see are bright, flashing letters that spell out "VOTE FOR GOATSTEIN" so if that is not how this vote is recorded then this entire election is asham
lungfish posted:
"Negative votes" are silly and unprecedented. If you want to vote "against" someone, vote for the most likely contendor. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then don't vote, and whine instead, as been the time-honored preference of much of LF.
There will probably be other elections in the future.
whats the problem with integrating yea/nay with plurality voting. presumably there is one because normally negative votes are like "all these options are crap" or "redo." why shouldnt that be atomized, i dunno
JackNapier posted:infrateal posted:
im tempted to vote badcrumble for hat trick of ell effs but his absenteeism is merely mitigated by mod hat
if lady appears to spin clockwise vote for baby finland, if counterclockwise joolsit always moves clockwise
tabulators do not clikc!
Edited by infrateal ()
infrateal posted:
whats the problem with integrating yea/nay with plurality voting. presumably there is one because normally negative votes are like "all these options are crap" or "redo." why shouldnt that be atomized, i dunno
It enables people to vote for a contender without taking responsibility for the contendor. Aside for Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, elections never feature perfect candidates. Can't we just do things normally for once?
No mods, no masters.
infrateal posted:
im tempted to vote badcrumble for hat trick of ell effs but his absenteeism is merely mitigated by mod hat
if lady appears to spin clockwise vote for baby finland, if counterclockwise jools
single pixel nipple
kylejack posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_aboveNo mods, no masters.
right, thats what i meant, generalized negative votes are common in multioption voting but negative votes for specific options are not, except in yes/no/abstain which only applies when there is a single "option" to vote on and specificity is irrelevant! why is there no specific-option negative voting when there are multiple options to vote for
infrateal posted:
that was a serious ? nto rhetorical im curious why that doesnt work. anyway voting against people is pretty normal, just look at survivor!!!!!
Yes, I'm serious. It isn't good for individuals or the state to vote for a candidate indirectly.
It also distorts the tallies. If you must allow negative voting, at least show the positive and negative votes in parantheses in addition to the total.
lungfish posted:infrateal posted:
that was a serious ? nto rhetorical im curious why that doesnt work. anyway voting against people is pretty normal, just look at survivor!!!!!Yes, I'm serious. It isn't good for individuals or the state to vote for a candidate indirectly.
you havent said why its bad though, only that its silly, bad, unprecedented (the last one is correct afaict but why?) my guess is that popular candidates + their backlash would level out below middling candidates who people dont care enough to use their vote against, which seems like it would favor centrists & blandness. but this criticism applies to preferential voting systems, is the problem that theres noting negative voting does that ranking wouldnt do better?
It also distorts the tallies. If you must allow negative voting, at least show the positive and negative votes in parantheses in addition to the total.
yeah thats true, postvoting does this, its really funny to click on 1 and see like 19 votes almost cancelling each other out
post rankings here seem to have this problem and i cant tell if theres even any way to click to see? like i get taken to the posters total rep page, not a breakdown for that particular post. it might be too late/difficult to do this but could we have differentiated upvote/downvote tallies on the post? like instead of 2, +3/-1
infrateal posted:
tabulators do not clikc!
Spoiler!
:nooo:
JackNapier posted:
give everyone moderating powers on their own threads
it's literally foolproof
that's what thread monitors are sorta
infrateal posted:
you havent said why its bad though, only that its silly, bad, unprecedented (the last one is correct afaict but why?) my guess is that popular candidates + their backlash would level out below middling candidates who people dont care enough to use their vote against, which seems like it would favor centrists & blandness. but this criticism applies to preferential voting systems, is the problem that theres noting negative voting does that ranking wouldnt do better?
An individual who goes to vote but votes a negative vote does so out of spite. This is not a trait to be encouraged. They will, indirectly, assist the election of another candidate. If that candidate wins, the voter can then claim they did not assist their election, but merely "voted against" the other candidate, and is therefore not responsible for the reign of the other candidate. This is corruptive and dishonest. The easiest way to ensure this behavior does not occur is to require that people actually vote for the candidate they prefer to win the election, rather than voting by proxy via negative vote.
From the perspective of the newly elected candidate, he finds himself without much clear support. Many of his de facto voters may actually be those who voted "against" the other candidates, and feel no fealty to him. This is disruptive to his ends and to society as a whole.
I envision a scenario in which everyone seeks to avoid the liability of voting for a candidate and instead votes against candidates they most oppose. In this way, the tally ends up being entirely negative, and the winner of the election becomes the one with the least negative votes. The winning candidate therefore trends towards being the one with the lowest profile, and they are not likely to survive reelection, as someone with a lower profile will likely succeed them. Thus the moderators of the state become a revolving door of nobodies.
lungfish posted:infrateal posted:
you havent said why its bad though, only that its silly, bad, unprecedented (the last one is correct afaict but why?) my guess is that popular candidates + their backlash would level out below middling candidates who people dont care enough to use their vote against, which seems like it would favor centrists & blandness. but this criticism applies to preferential voting systems, is the problem that theres noting negative voting does that ranking wouldnt do better?An individual who goes to vote but votes a negative vote does so out of spite. This is not a trait to be encouraged. They will, indirectly, assist the election of another candidate. If that candidate wins, the voter can then claim they did not assist their election, but merely "voted against" the other candidate, and is therefore not responsible for the reign of the other candidate. This is corruptive and dishonest. The easiest way to ensure this behavior does not occur is to require that people actually vote for the candidate they prefer to win the election, rather than voting by proxy via negative vote.
From the perspective of the newly elected candidate, he finds himself without much clear support. Many of his de facto voters may actually be those who voted "against" the other candidates, and feel no fealty to him. This is disruptive to his ends and to society as a whole.
I envision a scenario in which everyone seeks to avoid the liability of voting for a candidate and instead votes against candidates they most oppose. In this way, the tally ends up being entirely negative, and the winner of the election becomes the one with the least negative votes. The winning candidate therefore trends towards being the one with the lowest profile, and they are not likely to survive reelection, as someone with a lower profile will likely succeed them. Thus the moderators of the state become a revolving door of nobodies.
lolin' without reading
infrateal posted:JackNapier posted:infrateal posted:
im tempted to vote badcrumble for hat trick of ell effs but his absenteeism is merely mitigated by mod hat
if lady appears to spin clockwise vote for baby finland, if counterclockwise joolsit always moves clockwise
tabulators do not clikc!
Spoiler!
my brain only wants to see it as clockwise, even with the lines, but i think the foot's shadow means its definitively counterclockwise... maybe?
lungfish posted:
An individual who goes to vote but votes a negative vote does so out of spite. This is not a trait to be encouraged. They will, indirectly, assist the election of another candidate. If that candidate wins, the voter can then claim they did not assist their election, but merely "voted against" the other candidate, and is therefore not responsible for the reign of the other candidate. This is corruptive and dishonest. The easiest way to ensure this behavior does not occur is to require that people actually vote for the candidate they prefer to win the election, rather than voting by proxy via negative vote.
From the perspective of the newly elected candidate, he finds himself without much clear support. Many of his de facto voters may actually be those who voted "against" the other candidates, and feel no fealty to him. This is disruptive to his ends and to society as a whole.
hrm, i think you overestimate the moral consequence of expressing negativity but your basic idea that the winner would seem to lack legitimacy sounds right--although its entirely possible the voter is right in their claim of nonassistance because at the time voting down the leader would seem to position a different contender for ultimate victory, this isnt really any better. and this is distinct from ranking systems because its a single vote, not an evaluation of all options
one criticism though, we now have the opposite problem of false legitimacy: people vote "against" candidates all the time, people couldnt vote no sharron angle so they were forced to vote for harry reid, who was widely despised and predicted to lose if it werent for votes against a lunatic.
this is not literally against however, and thats another problem: often the forced utilitarian choice of a lesser evil is repugnant. like, the outcome is the same as a downvote, but there is a subjective moral difference between voting yes to asshole and voting no to asshole2. i think way more people hated bush than gave a shit about kerry; if people had been allowed to downvote, partisans for both candidates still would have been able to vote for them, but people who disliked both but thought one was worse would still be able to vote honestly. forcing a dishonest affirmation of a disliked candidate is what seems morally corrosive to me, as well as corrosive to the state by that dishonest shitty pointless feeling dampening enthusiasm, thus turnout, thus accuracy of representation
of course id rather solve this problem with some kind of preferential system not this thought experiment of letting people vote NotBush
I envision a scenario in which everyone seeks to avoid the liability of voting for a candidate and instead votes against candidates they most oppose. In this way, the tally ends up being entirely negative, and the winner of the election becomes the one with the least negative votes. The winning candidate therefore trends towards being the one with the lowest profile, and they are not likely to survive reelection, as someone with a lower profile will likely succeed them. Thus the moderators of the state become a revolving door of nobodies.
if ONLY negative votes were allowed that would be different entirely, inverting most good to least bad usually brings a different set of criteria into play...
infrateal posted:
hrm, i think you overestimate the moral consequence of expressing negativity but your basic idea that the winner would seem to lack legitimacy sounds right--although its entirely possible the voter is right in their claim of nonassistance because at the time voting down the leader would seem to position a different contender for ultimate victory, this isnt really any better. and this is distinct from ranking systems because its a single vote, not an evaluation of all options
one criticism though, we now have the opposite problem of false legitimacy: people vote "against" candidates all the time, people couldnt vote no sharron angle so they were forced to vote for harry reid, who was widely despised and predicted to lose if it werent for votes against a lunatic.
this is not literally against however, and thats another problem: often the forced utilitarian choice of a lesser evil is repugnant. like, the outcome is the same as a downvote, but there is a subjective moral difference between voting yes to asshole and voting no to asshole2. i think way more people hated bush than gave a shit about kerry; if people had been allowed to downvote, partisans for both candidates still would have been able to vote for them, but people who disliked both but thought one was worse would still be able to vote honestly. forcing a dishonest affirmation of a disliked candidate is what seems morally corrosive to me, as well as corrosive to the state by that dishonest shitty pointless feeling dampening enthusiasm, thus turnout, thus accuracy of representation
of course id rather solve this problem with some kind of preferential system not this thought experiment of letting people vote NotBush
I see your point. I agree that a preferential system (e.g. Instant Runoff Voting) is best.
An addition question: To avoid potential negative consequences to the voter for voting honestly and possibly offending the winner, should votes be private rather than public, or is voting an act that one must be held publicly accountable for?
There is also the question of whether we want everyone to be allowed to vote, or only those with a significant standing in the community, but that raises problems of defining criteria.
if ONLY negative votes were allowed that would be different entirely, inverting most good to least bad usually brings a different set of criteria into play...
I was suggesting it might ultimately degrade into that because publicly opposing someone is easier than publicly supporting someone, but now I think that's not necessarily the case. A compelling favorite may still garner support. Still, this issue becomes irrelevant if voting is either private or preferential.
also i'm glad lmnop is here. i had a total mini-crush on her months ago for her posts and then i found out she was cute and it was like being handed a lonely planet travel guide you asked for for christmas about buenos aires and feeling good and then you look inside and there are airplane tickets.
getfiscal posted:
i'm changing my vote to be in favour of baby finland because he can't tell when i'm joking (i'm almost always joking) and i'd like to keep being friends with him over the long haul, and you need little bumps like moderatorship votes when taking the lumps of teasing him for being an antisemite and 'bender.
also i'm glad lmnop is here. i had a total mini-crush on her months ago for her posts and then i found out she was cute and it was like being handed a lonely planet travel guide you asked for for christmas about buenos aires and feeling good and then you look inside and there are airplane tickets.
i've never posted my picture anywhere! and i'm a hairy serbian thug, not a girl!
getfiscal posted:
who am i thinking of then. some feisty commulady. i feel really out of it right now by the way.
miss march?
getfiscal posted:
my esteemed colleague
you're probably gonna have to fight of like half of wddp-lf to get a chance at her, ganbare!
lungfish posted:
infrateal posted:
you havent said why its bad though, only that its silly, bad, unprecedented (the last one is correct afaict but why?) my guess is that popular candidates + their backlash would level out below middling candidates who people dont care enough to use their vote against, which seems like it would favor centrists & blandness. but this criticism applies to preferential voting systems, is the problem that theres noting negative voting does that ranking wouldnt do better?
An individual who goes to vote but votes a negative vote does so out of spite. This is not a trait to be encouraged. They will, indirectly, assist the election of another candidate. If that candidate wins, the voter can then claim they did not assist their election, but merely "voted against" the other candidate, and is therefore not responsible for the reign of the other candidate. This is corruptive and dishonest. The easiest way to ensure this behavior does not occur is to require that people actually vote for the candidate they prefer to win the election, rather than voting by proxy via negative vote.
From the perspective of the newly elected candidate, he finds himself without much clear support. Many of his de facto voters may actually be those who voted "against" the other candidates, and feel no fealty to him. This is disruptive to his ends and to society as a whole.
I envision a scenario in which everyone seeks to avoid the liability of voting for a candidate and instead votes against candidates they most oppose. In this way, the tally ends up being entirely negative, and the winner of the election becomes the one with the least negative votes. The winning candidate therefore trends towards being the one with the lowest profile, and they are not likely to survive reelection, as someone with a lower profile will likely succeed them. Thus the moderators of the state become a revolving door of nobodies.
who cares about any of this shit. voting is bogus