Parity Shift poll and discussion

Isn't that a contradicting approach:

Please do not have an opinion on every topic posted.
Please provide your opinion on this topic...Even though the topic has been passed through the grinder already(we do not need your opinion)

I respect everyone's right to creating a debate. I also respect everyone's right to question/debate a given topic.

If,as stated above, the puposes is merely to perpetuate the discussion so that somewhere down the road the response given by the audience changes, then would it not be better to hold this discussion at a later date(altogether); say 3-6 months from now?

Just my 2 cents. And I am not looking for a fight.

Ohlmann wrote: Continuing on the same thread would have been better in my opinion.

I'm not, like, trying to be combative here, but really, why does it matter? It isn't like this sub-forum is so active that a couple extra possibly redundant threads is going to cause things to get washed away into the aether. And they don't cost anyone anything. And they are easy to ignore. What difference does it make if someone starts a new thread with a different specific poll question?

Usually I don't mind too much seeing a lot of discussion, but on parity shift the arguments are a bit inbreed lately.

Again, not trying to be combative, but if you aren't interested in them, why are you reading them? Just don't open the thread. They aren't being direct mailed to your home, presumably. It is very easy to avoid things you want to avoid in this forum. Just don't open the threads.

bakija wrote: I'm not, like, trying to be combative here, but really, why does it matter? It isn't like this sub-forum is so active that a couple extra possibly redundant threads is going to cause things to get washed away into the aether. And they don't cost anyone anything. And they are easy to ignore. What difference does it make if someone starts a new thread with a different specific poll question?

You're reading too much into the post. I have a preference in having one thread because it's easier for me to read and everything. I wasn't trying to do veiled attacks against peoples or anything, in fact I am not usually subtle when I disagree (as you may have seen).

Maybe "inbreed" was too much of a word for what I was feeling. Foreign languages are not my forte, alas.

bakija wrote: Again, not trying to be combative, but if you aren't interested in them, why are you reading them? Just don't open the thread. They aren't being direct mailed to your home, presumably. It is very easy to avoid things you want to avoid in this forum. Just don't open the threads.

I have not posted on this subject for this reason. I read it in case somewhat have a new and fresh point.

When I want a topic to die, I usually just stop posting and hope other people to do the same. My two post (this one and the one you quoted) are here more to show that Alek and Joscha are not the only one who don't understand too much the point of the thread.

As a (midly offensive I fear) side note, I'm not too thrilled by the second poll because it make me think of the EU way to handle "no" to treaty and such : ignore the no, and restart a consultation, hoping that peoples are too tired to refuse it again.

But unlike the EU, I don't think it's deliberate manipulation, more like dedication for the game in a wrong way (for me).

Ohlmann wrote: As a (midly offensive I fear) side note, I'm not too thrilled by the second poll because it make me think of the EU way to handle "no" to treaty and such : ignore the no, and restart a consultation, hoping that peoples are too tired to refuse it again.

But unlike the EU, I don't think it's deliberate manipulation, more like dedication for the game in a wrong way (for me).

It isn't like Kevin starting this new, far more focused poll discussion is going to accidentally get Parity Shift banned or anything; if the focused attempts to get it changed/banned for, like, 10-15 years on the newsgroup didn't do it, this discussion thread certainly isn't.

I suspect that what Kevin was doing was refocusing discussion to the bare bones for polling--two choices A ("do something!") and B ("do nothing!"); the previous poll had, like, 8 choices and was all over the place on that front. Both of them had about the same result (the majority of people chose "do nothing!"; I think the majority in this case is on crack, but ok). But the focus is tighter.

Ohlmann wrote: I'm not too thrilled by the second poll because it make me think of the EU way to handle "no" to treaty and such : ignore the no, and restart a consultation, hoping that peoples are too tired to refuse it again.

I had the sama allegory too