rigorousintuition.ca

brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:32 pm wrote:

barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:19 pm wrote:I'm boycotting this farce. Could someone post running totals so conscientious non-participants and unregistered lurkers might observe on the edge of their seat?

I'm not even sure what I'm voting for. Are we voting on: "Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?"
or are we voting as to whether to 1) No. overturn the decision by the mods or 2) Yes! keep the integrity of the ban in place.

See what I did there?

You got a future writing legislation in Washington.

Something's missing; I feel like there should be a campaign, with speeches and rallies and slick video ads.

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:37 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:32 pm wrote:

barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:19 pm wrote:I'm boycotting this farce. Could someone post running totals so conscientious non-participants and unregistered lurkers might observe on the edge of their seat?

I'm not even sure what I'm voting for. Are we voting on: "Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?"
or are we voting as to whether to 1) No. overturn the decision by the mods or 2) Yes! keep the integrity of the ban in place.

See what I did there?

You got a future writing legislation in Washington.

Fuck that man.

Clear, simple, neutral. That's all I wanted.

Would you approve of the following?:

Should the unanimous decision by the mods and admin to ban Canadian Watcher remain in force?

1) No

2) Yes

Why or why not?

These answers:

1 No The permanent ban should stay
2 Yes The permanent ban should be lifted

...don't even apply to this question:

Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?

Even I think the moderators and admin ought to reconsider and so think they should be asked to do so, even though they have probably already thought it through exhaustively. Mainly because I think such a decision should be scrutinized and if this forces them to be somewhat more forthcoming than they have been then it's for the good.

The "no" and the "yes" in the answers are superfluous since the answers don't relate to the question. Need I explain the effect the words yes and no have on people? The use of the word "lifted" was a nice touch. "TheMods" gets honorable mention.

Not that it's likely to make a whit of difference tbh. But I thought I'd point it out.

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:I am toing to go ahead and predict that this poll will tell us something when it is all over with.

Agree.

_____________

Also:

I'm not voting, on the grounds that it's not fair to brekin.

They were on the exact opposite sides of the same conflict on the Misogyny thread -- ie, she was legitimately on-topic on a sensitive issue, and he just felt too accused by it to let it go.

If anyone wants to see it, it started here, got much worse here, and then continued on and off for a solid month before the thread was locked on page 146. But if anyone wants to read the whole thing, it starts with the first post on the second page of results here.)

At the time, I thought he couldn't have been more wrong, inappropriate or insensitive.

But I guess I was mistaken. Because one thing you won't find is him escalating the conflict by seizing on opportunities to mock, lampoon, scorn and make a caricature out of her until she broke down, gave up and quit trying to speak for herself.

So I guess I ought to have thought that while he wasn't being nice, at least he wasn't going out of his way to be mean to her just because she was distressed about something that didn't bother him, which made him feel unfairly accused.


It would have been forgivable if he had. Same as it is for her. But it is a thing, and it wasn't brave. It was just mean. So I'm protest-not-voting on his behalf.

Elvis » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:46 pm wrote:Something's missing; I feel like there should be a campaign, with speeches and rallies and slick video ads.

No what is really missing is some good old corruption, we need some corruption like evidence of sockpuppets and vote fraud, people offering to sell their votes for money etc. That would make it feel more like the real thing.

Thanks for pointing me here Hunter.

Remember you can't complain if you don't vote. Make sure you've your voter registration and get your vote in before the polls close .

Essentially this is a vote of non-confidence in the mods. You are all Morsi now!

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:I am toing to go ahead and predict that this poll will tell us something when it is all over with.

So far its telling us that only 25 screen names care enough to vote.
Stay tuned on RI for the next earthshaking debate: butter or margarine?

wintler2 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:40 pm wrote:

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:I am toing to go ahead and predict that this poll will tell us something when it is all over with.

So far its telling us that only 25 screen names care enough to vote.
Stay tuned on RI for the next earthshaking debate: butter or margarine?

Well that could be partly because they buried this thread in Siberia, which I still dont understand but I dont care to bother anyone about it as it isnt that important because its pretty clear what the result of this poll is going to be either way.

68% right on the money, heh.

Has it occurred to anyone else that CW may not WANT to return?

LilyPat

LilyPatToo » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:48 pm wrote:Has it occurred to anyone else that CW may not WANT to return?

LilyPat

Yes. And I'd surprised to learn that anyone thinking about this at all has not already considered that very real possibility. But we can;t really ask her so that is a moot point at the moment.

My guess is that she would not be able to resist returning to at least pretend to have been terribly aggrieved, put on a show of innocence and then at some point go into melt down mode and start slashing and burning, not to mention continue the whisper campaign and quietly insert the poison into the forum.

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:26 pm wrote:

OP ED » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:09 pm wrote:OP ED couldn't vote. it said OP ED's form was invalid. whatever that means.

but OP ED was trying to vote against a ban.

of course, that is only because OP ED enjoys endless conflict.

Interesting, who is trying to cull voters from the rolls and influence election results?

Any other reports of people being denied the ability to vote, identifications not being accepted, people being told they are listed as deceased and therefore refused a ballot?

it was probably just my [lack of] internet connectivity.

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:I am toing to go ahead and predict that this poll will tell us something when it is all over with.

safe prediction.

OP ED » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:23 pm wrote:

Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:26 pm wrote:

OP ED » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:09 pm wrote:OP ED couldn't vote. it said OP ED's form was invalid. whatever that means.

but OP ED was trying to vote against a ban.

of course, that is only because OP ED enjoys endless conflict.

Interesting, who is trying to cull voters from the rolls and influence election results?

Any other reports of people being denied the ability to vote, identifications not being accepted, people being told they are listed as deceased and therefore refused a ballot?

it was probably just my [lack of] internet connectivity.

I got the same error message. In two different polls.

Just some glitch I imagine. Whatever.