Questions for Callaway

[purposefulinsanity]

Actually I did wonder who was 'allowed' to say that a poll was set up in such a way as to skew the results, but like I said I don't think that's the most important point as far as this issue goes. Its the suggestion (even if its only implied) that there's an official line that could over-ride the members' wishes that bothers me.   Personally I think that if anyone else had set up a poll worded in exactly the same way people would have assumed they were trying to be humorous with the options, something not uncommon on here, and people wouldn't have had a problem with it.  Unfortunately I don't see anyway to make people judge posts/polls on their merits without letting who started it colour their view.

[Calandale]

Humor was a big part of what I was doing.
Hell, I didn't assume the thing had a chance
of passing. Nor would I necessarily favor
it doing so. Actually, like many things, I
was hoping to be convinced, one way
or the other.

The proclamation disturbed me, as I believe
he's done that before. Might even be arsed to
dig up a similar case.

[Callaway]

Actually I did wonder who was 'allowed' to say that a poll was set up in such a way as to skew the results, but like I said I don't think that's the most important point as far as this issue goes. Its the suggestion (even if its only implied) that there's an official line that could over-ride the members' wishes that bothers me.   Personally I think that if anyone else had set up a poll worded in exactly the same way people would have assumed they were trying to be humorous with the options, something not uncommon on here, and people wouldn't have had a problem with it.  Unfortunately I don't see anyway to make people judge posts/polls on their merits without letting who started it colour their view.

I think that anyone is allowed to express their opinion of the wording of a poll, and the first one was slanted so that a yes vote implied that

1) the person was joking in their vote to dissolve the WC and turn over the decision making for Intensity back to "Team Despot" and that

2) the person did not trust Dunc.

I don't think that who started the poll did color anyone's view, Purposeful Insanity.

Calandale started both polls and the vote was very different in the neutral one he started from the vote in the slanted one he started, so it can't be the fact that he started the first one, it has to be the slanted and confusing way that he worded it.

[Calandale]

I think that anyone is allowed to express their opinion of the wording of a poll, and the first one was slanted so that a yes vote implied that

1) the person was joking in their vote to dissolve the WC and turn over the decision making for Intensity back to "Team Despot" and that

2) the person did not trust Dunc.

I don't think 2 was implied at all.
1 MIGHT have meant that they changed their minds,
as well. It just acknowledged the fact that in the initial vote
not a single person voted for the situation we have currently.

I don't think that who started the poll did color anyone's view, Purposeful Insanity.

Calandale started both polls and the vote was very different in the neutral one he started from the vote in the slanted one he started, so it can't be the fact that he started the first one, it has to be the slanted and confusing way that he worded it.

Except that you suggested the rewording. Still, the experiment
was an interesting one. It showed how many people are unwilling
to face what they DID vote for - and how that affected (*sigh*) their
later choice.

[purposefulinsanity]

.
Calandale started both polls and the vote was very different in the neutral one he started from the vote in the slanted one he started, so it can't be the fact that he started the first one, it has to be the slanted and confusing way that he worded it.

  Yet no-one claimed that Dunc's humorously worded poll with his tag-line of "Vote despotism. You know it makes sense." was set up to skew the results.  Is that because people rightly assumed that Dunc was trying to be funny?  Is there any reason why it wouldn't be assumed that Cal was also trying to be funny?
   

[ALLDAYGLOWRANDY]

I didn't read it all, but so far sounds like squabbling over details

[Calandale]

I didn't read it all, but so far sounds like squabbling over details

That's because, to you, Callaway is always right.

[odeon]

Dunc said you can start a poll if you wish. He said nothing about stopping the election. I simply reiterated the message from our Beloved Leader.

 

I think you should try to remember what you've been saying yourself: this is not a democracy.

Before you start speaking for Dunc you should ask him if he actually meant he wouldn't stop the election if a decent majority voted against it. 

By that time, we had agreed on going back to the pre-WC Intensity rules, and that there would be an election. My response, and particularly its tone, was in response to Cal's constant mind games regarding any issues concerning site direction, but the reason for it was only to reiterate what had already been decided. It wasn't hard to see Cal's suggestion as being yet another game, but damn near impossible to see it as something meant to be funny.

[Calandale]

By that time, we had agreed on going back to the pre-WC Intensity rules, and that there would be an election. My response, and particularly its tone, was in response to Cal's constant mind games regarding any issues concerning site direction, but the reason for it was only to reiterate what had already been decided. It wasn't hard to see Cal's suggestion as being yet another game, but damn near impossible to see it as something meant to be funny.

Seemed a reasonable issue, given the prior vote.
Might NOT have halted the current election - though
there would have been time, given that there was a
week to resolve the poll, within the nominations period.

Presuming that there was no dictatorial decree stating that
the site WOULD have an election, no matter what the members
wanted.

[odeon]

If you want to discuss in terms of dictatorial decrees, this is probably of interest:

What's all this stuff about Dunc's whim? Last I heard, Dunc and Odeon were joint despots. Has something changed?

As far as I know Odeon is still part of Team Despot. So references to Dunc's whim could equally apply to Odeon's whim.

But seriously, instead of more hyperbole, if you want to know, why don't you ask Dunc? I've already repeatedly told you (and PI, and others) what happened, and why I replied to you the way I did.

[Calandale]

If you want to discuss in terms of dictatorial decrees, this is probably of interest:

What's all this stuff about Dunc's whim? Last I heard, Dunc and Odeon were joint despots. Has something changed?

As far as I know Odeon is still part of Team Despot. So references to Dunc's whim could equally apply to Odeon's whim.

But seriously, instead of more hyperbole, if you want to know, why don't you ask Dunc? I've already repeatedly told you (and PI, and others) what happened, and why I replied to you the way I did.

Actually, I REMEMBERED that. And my actions were tempered
by the fear of your threats, given that. And the fact that dunc
was saying nothing in response to what was going on. Reminded me
too much of the situation that got me banned from WP, though Alex
never made any such statement about MrMark.

[purposefulinsanity]

Ok- what I'm struggling to understand about the situation is how we can be going back to pre-WC days with elections and members having the right to set up polls, but, at the same time, have it set in stone that there were going to be elections.  If people had voted they didn't want them surely we would have had no choice but to scrap them? (It seemed that you were saying that we wouldn't- am I wrong?  )

[odeon]

Ok- what I'm struggling to understand about the situation is how we can be going back to pre-WC days with elections and members having the right to set up polls, but, at the same time, have it set in stone that there were going to be elections.  If people had voted they didn't want them surely we would have had no choice but to scrap them? (It seemed that you were saying that we wouldn't- am I wrong?  )

Again, I wasn't decreeing anything, I was repeating what we had already decided--to have an election, pre-WC style, and reacting to yet another mind game by Calandale, one where he went from an outspoken advocate of the World Council type direct democracy to an Intensity ruled by despots. I find it difficult to take him seriously because of this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the pre-WC days, elections started to happen because the staff then decided it would be a good thing to have them, not because there was a vote by the general membership. In a similar manner, a poll could not actually stop the elections from happening.

Hmm. Maybe McJ or Callaway (or Dunc) knows...

[purposefulinsanity]

Ok- what I'm struggling to understand about the situation is how we can be going back to pre-WC days with elections and members having the right to set up polls, but, at the same time, have it set in stone that there were going to be elections.  If people had voted they didn't want them surely we would have had no choice but to scrap them? (It seemed that you were saying that we wouldn't- am I wrong?  )

Again, I wasn't decreeing anything, I was repeating what we had already decided--to have an election, pre-WC style, and reacting to yet another mind game by Calandale, one where he went from an outspoken advocate of the World Council type direct democracy to an Intensity ruled by despots. I find it difficult to take him seriously because of this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the pre-WC days, elections started to happen because the staff then decided it would be a good thing to have them, not because there was a vote by the general membership. In a similar manner, a poll could not actually stop the elections from happening.

Hmm. Maybe McJ or Callaway (or Dunc) knows...

A poll stopped the WC though which was set up in the same way.  We've always allowed members to vote on any issue- are you suggesting that the question of whether or not we have elections should be off limits in your opinion.

[Calandale]

Again, I wasn't decreeing anything, I was repeating what we had already decided--to have an election, pre-WC style, and reacting to yet another mind game by Calandale, one where he went from an outspoken advocate of the World Council type direct democracy to an Intensity ruled by despots. I find it difficult to take him seriously because of this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only one.

When have I EVER advocated the despotism?
I was merely putting forth the point that we HAD
voted that in, against my wishes. And, that maybe
people actually meant to absolutely ignore the option
which would have returned things to the pre-WC days,
instead have just been misrepresenting what they wanted.

I can see that you DON'T trust the vote there, so why in
elections for admins? Is it because you know that a popularity
contest is safe, but voting on issues is not?