rigorousintuition.ca

My judgement was to get this up rather than leave it hanging.

The issue of this type of Polling in the future and it's codification is an additional conversation.
SLAD's issue of the Firepit and flammable threads seems another further conversation.

Very well done and simple, I think you did it just right, good job. We will see how it goes, should be interesting.

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?

The mods decided to ban, the animals revolted, whilst the fish jumped out of the pond and shouted "boycott". The mouse squeaked.

Anyone else read Orwells "animal- farm- on-steroids "?

barracuda » 21 Jul 2013 12:19 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?

just vote.

an abstain option would have been good, but too late, no biggie.

barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:19 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?

4 to 3 in favor of lifting ban right now.

Thank you for the early returns, Hunter. I now see that I can view the results without voting, so it's all good. I never knew that before today.

I am learned sumthing from this!!

Since this is essentially an appeal to the mods, it belongs in the ask admin sub forum. I'll put a notice in the other thread.

We got a tight race at 9 to 5 in favor of lifting ban with 1% of the precients reporting and Nate Silver suggesting there is a good chance the repub...err the inmates may take over the asylum this election.

Source:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/15/nate-sil ... p-in-2014/

A boycott is as good as it gets to me...

slimmouse » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:24 pm wrote:The mods decided to ban, the animals revolted, whilst the fish jumped out of the pond and shouted "boycott". The mouse squeaked.

Anyone else read Orwells "animal- farm- on-steroids "?

If he'd shouted boycott or made any kind of attempt to quash the idea that went beyond saying he thought it was a bad one and why, you'd have a point.

But I really mean that very mildly. Your loyalty and good intentions are very evident, and they do you credit. So there's no cause for anything but pride on your part, imo. I'm just saying.

...

I'm not sure I'm going to vote, either, tbh. I'd prefer that it be resolved with her being reinstated. But I've already said that.

And there's no "Yes, every possible effort should be made by all parties to achieve a fairer and happier outcome, even though that probably means everybody accepting compromises they might rather not have to make" option.

I guess I have to think it through.

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.

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?

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?

I am toing to go ahead and predict that this poll will tell us something when it is all over with.