• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

PROBATION DISCUSSIONS
21 21

Started by alwaysbronze,

36,203 posts in this topic

comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I'm not a fan of the polls where you can't see the results until the end of the poll.

 

I used to have the same thought.

 

However, the power of the group and of prevailing opinion can influence voting.

 

Everyone wants to be on the "winning" side and so forth.

 

Blind polls are far more accurate a measure of true opinion.

Even if that's true, and I'm not so sure it is, you can't see the results of the poll until you vote, so where's the influence? Are we worried about people discussing the results, and having that influence folks? I don't see how that's much different from people talking about how they voted individually.

 

I also think we're giving all of this way too much thought. For the most part everything works fine. :)

 

 

So I guess you haven't seen people giving "blow by blow" real time status updates, complete with screen shots, as the voting proceeds then?

 

The influence comes from "Oh jeez...80% of the forum thinks this way? If it's that slanted there's probably something to it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EC ed

EC ed

Posted
Posted

Another question about this "hidden poll" approach - is there a way to know how many people have voted in this poll? Can the creator of the poll (i.e., DiceX) see that info?

 

I don't think it'll be an issue for this particular Menace poll, but in general here's what's on my mind...I'd hate to see an HOS decision made based on extremely low turnout....what if an HOS poll runs its course and we then find out only 12 people voted, or something like that?

 

Related to this is another thing I was thinking...in addition to the poll duration requirement, should there be a quorum requirement? For example, at least 50 (or some such number, TBD) members must vote for a HOS vote to be binding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted

Backing up comix4fun's point, in voter turnout there is the perceived idea of the "pivotal" voter. Voter turnout is lower in elections where there is the perceived notion that the voters vote won't matter. I.E. in New York City's Mayoral election there was a concern that due to the heavy lead held by one of the candidates (of almost 50% points) that many voters would not come out to have their voices heard because hey, they guy they want is going to win/lose anyway. Now this wasn't going to affect the mayoral race, BUT it did have implications in other races because of diminished voter turnout.

 

In our example here we could say that someone who comes into the probation area sees that a poll is an 80/20% split and decides they won't vote because its such a blow out already, one vote won't change that.

 

If you would like to read more on the study of the pivotal voter affect you can read this paper here: http://hss.caltech.edu/~magranov/documents/polls.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
I'm not a fan of the polls where you can't see the results until the end of the poll.

 

I used to have the same thought.

 

However, the power of the group and of prevailing opinion can influence voting.

 

Everyone wants to be on the "winning" side and so forth.

 

Blind polls are far more accurate a measure of true opinion.

Even if that's true, and I'm not so sure it is, you can't see the results of the poll until you vote, so where's the influence? Are we worried about people discussing the results, and having that influence folks? I don't see how that's much different from people talking about how they voted individually.

 

I also think we're giving all of this way too much thought. For the most part everything works fine. :)

 

 

So I guess you haven't seen people giving "blow by blow" real time status updates, complete with screen shots, as the voting proceeds then?

 

The influence comes from "Oh jeez...80% of the forum thinks this way? If it's that slanted there's probably something to it."

Yeah, I'm not really worried about that. First of all, if it's gotten to 80%/20% with any reasonable number of votes, it probably doesn't matter how others vote. Second, I'm not convinced that there's any more sway happening with discussion of the totals vs. everyone talking about how they voted. Third, aside from Menace, the HoS votes have all gone quite well. And without changing the way things work at all, we're dealing with the Menace thing...he'll be coming off the list soon I'm sure. :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
Backing up comix4fun's point, in voter turnout there is the perceived idea of the "pivotal" voter. Voter turnout is lower in elections where there is the perceived notion that the voters vote won't matter. I.E. in New York City's Mayoral election there was a concern that due to the heavy lead held by one of the candidates (of almost 50% points) that many voters would not come out to have their voices heard because hey, they guy they want is going to win/lose anyway. Now this wasn't going to affect the mayoral race, BUT it did have implications in other races because of diminished voter turnout.

How does that apply here at all? What other races are we sweatin' over?

 

In our example here we could say that someone who comes into the probation area sees that a poll is an 80/20% split and decides they won't vote because its such a blow out already, one vote won't change that.

I doubt htis applies either. With elections, people are weighing the hassle of heading out to the polls and standing in line with the fact that their vote probably won't sway anything since the numbers are already skewed and there's a huge pool of voters. Here, there's far less hassle (gotta click a couple buttons in your Web browser) and a far smaller pool of voters (maybe dozens vs. millions). I just don't see it.

 

If you would like to read more on the study of the pivotal voter affect you can read this paper here: http://hss.caltech.edu/~magranov/documents/polls.pdf

M'man, you really know how to kick this up a notch don't you!! (worship)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I'm not a fan of the polls where you can't see the results until the end of the poll.

 

I used to have the same thought.

 

However, the power of the group and of prevailing opinion can influence voting.

 

Everyone wants to be on the "winning" side and so forth.

 

Blind polls are far more accurate a measure of true opinion.

Even if that's true, and I'm not so sure it is, you can't see the results of the poll until you vote, so where's the influence? Are we worried about people discussing the results, and having that influence folks? I don't see how that's much different from people talking about how they voted individually.

 

I also think we're giving all of this way too much thought. For the most part everything works fine. :)

 

 

So I guess you haven't seen people giving "blow by blow" real time status updates, complete with screen shots, as the voting proceeds then?

 

The influence comes from "Oh jeez...80% of the forum thinks this way? If it's that slanted there's probably something to it."

Yeah, I'm not really worried about that. First of all, if it's gotten to 80%/20% with any reasonable number of votes, it probably doesn't matter how others vote. Second, I'm not convinced that there's any more sway happening with discussion of the totals vs. everyone talking about how they voted. Third, aside from Menace, the HoS votes have all gone quite well. And without changing the way things work at all, we're dealing with the Menace thing...he'll be coming off the list soon I'm sure. :foryou:

 

 

 

I am sure most folks are voting how they feel and may not be swayed. However, that's not the same as having a vote that's entirely unswayed by the "exit polling" that goes on in there. The votes would probably still carry the same majority regardless, but not be the landslides we are seeing in every single case.

 

If you think about it as if it were two parties going on at the same time in adjacent ball rooms.

 

There's a guy standing in the hallway holding a sign..."losers to the right, winners to the left", you peek inside the "losers" room and there are 20 guys standing the corner and there's a boombox playing a vanilla ice cassette that keeps skipping. Then you peek inside the "winners" room, and see 80 people all having fun while the best cover band in the world is rocking the stage, with a full open bar, and carving stations serving up the good stuff. People may pick the one that looks like more fun, more inclusive, more popular. It's how humans think even if they don't realize it.

 

Don't discount, entirely, human psychology. People want to be "right" even if that doesn't necessarily mean taking the time to think the decision through.

 

Vote results untainted by perceived outcome will always be better indicators of true opinion and more accurate.

 

It's not a big change at all. It just eliminates the speculation, pollster-ism, and lobbying mid-vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
I'm not a fan of the polls where you can't see the results until the end of the poll.

 

I used to have the same thought.

 

However, the power of the group and of prevailing opinion can influence voting.

 

Everyone wants to be on the "winning" side and so forth.

 

Blind polls are far more accurate a measure of true opinion.

Even if that's true, and I'm not so sure it is, you can't see the results of the poll until you vote, so where's the influence? Are we worried about people discussing the results, and having that influence folks? I don't see how that's much different from people talking about how they voted individually.

 

I also think we're giving all of this way too much thought. For the most part everything works fine. :)

 

 

So I guess you haven't seen people giving "blow by blow" real time status updates, complete with screen shots, as the voting proceeds then?

 

The influence comes from "Oh jeez...80% of the forum thinks this way? If it's that slanted there's probably something to it."

Yeah, I'm not really worried about that. First of all, if it's gotten to 80%/20% with any reasonable number of votes, it probably doesn't matter how others vote. Second, I'm not convinced that there's any more sway happening with discussion of the totals vs. everyone talking about how they voted. Third, aside from Menace, the HoS votes have all gone quite well. And without changing the way things work at all, we're dealing with the Menace thing...he'll be coming off the list soon I'm sure. :foryou:

 

 

 

I am sure most folks are voting how they feel and may not be swayed. However, that's not the same as having a vote that's entirely unswayed by the "exit polling" that goes on in there.

Not sure what you mean by "exit polling." Is that people talking about how they voted (probably) or how the polls are looking? At any rate, there's always gonna be some swaying of people's opinions. I'm not sure that's bad, and I'm not sure it's rampant enough to require changes.

 

The votes would probably still carry the same majority regardless, but not be the landslides we are seeing in every single case.

Sounds okay to me...definitely not grounds for changing things up.

 

If you think about it as if it were two parties going on at the same time in adjacent ball rooms.

 

There's a guy standing in the hallway holding a sign..."losers to the right, winners to the left", you peek inside the "losers" room and there are 20 guys standing the corner and there's a boombox playing a vanilla ice cassette that keeps skipping. Then you peek inside the "winners" room, and see 80 people all having fun while the best cover band in the world is rocking the stage, with a full open bar, and carving stations serving up the good stuff. People may pick the one that looks like more fun, more inclusive, more popular. It's how humans think even if they don't realize it.

Not a great analogy. If the poll was just voting if you want to hang out with "winners" or "losers," of course you're gonna get most people voting for winners. :shrug: Also, there aren't two parties here. You don't get stuck anywhere, or with anyone, no matter how you vote. So the consequences you've set up don't apply.

 

Don't discount, entirely, human psychology. People want to be "right" even if that doesn't necessarily mean taking the time to think the decision through.

I'll buy that, but I'd need to be convinced that it applies here to enough of a degree to matter.

 

Vote results untainted by perceived outcome will always be better indicators of true opinion and more accurate.

 

It's not a big change at all. It just eliminates the speculation, pollster-ism, and lobbying mid-vote.

Ugh, discussions on the Internet can be frustrating. Sorry for the RMAesque dissection, but you said a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

I think what happened was pointed out the other day. In the HOS directive it listed multiple offender. The problem was that the multiple in this case was the same poor communication or organization. Although there are multiple offenses, none were malicious or an attempt to swindle the boards.

There definitely was a group behind the scenes voting him in (I would still bet a large number of noobs) but it appears based on this loose definition. Now that this has been corrected we should be good with either voting style moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
21 21
Go to topic listing