Timeline for Poll for time cutoff for changing vote
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Sep 24, 2016 at 12:12 | comment | added | Dilaton | @AsafKaragila ok, I might have gotten a bit carried away due to my past observations of SE having been not so nice to other communities in the network and because I think MO is a great gem ;-) | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 12:05 | comment | added | Dilaton | @AsafKaragila no, this alone is not of course. But even very small things such as the voting time-off, the comment edit time-off, the association bonus, the hot question list, the network wide implemented deletion scripts who do not only delete crap but also good legitimate specialized questions that did not gather enough attention (as defined by the standards for the large technological SE sites) together with other future uncalled for software changes have the potential to pill up to something significantly not so good ... | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 12:01 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Dilaton: The point I was trying to make in my first comment is that whenever there is some discussion about some functionality of the site not being 100% satisfactory to some users who have some hope to have it changed, it seems you always counter the argument "No way that SE will do that" with the argument "There is an exit clause, so SE should be extra nice to MO". As if that is a helpful strategy for anything. | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 11:52 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Dilaton: And not having a longer vote cut off time is something seriously wrong to you? In what universe? | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 11:47 | comment | added | Dilaton | @AsafKaragila the right use of the leaving clause as I personally have understood it is not as a threat (which would not be possible anyway as the prime goal of SE is not to serve as a platform for international academic communities) and this was not the intention of my previous comment either, but rather as a backdoor in case things go seriously wrong. | |
| Sep 24, 2016 at 4:44 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Dilaton: If I were a department head, and someone would have come to me and said "if you don't change the type of chalk we're using, I'm leaving!!!!!!11111oneoneoneoneoneleven", my reaction would have been "Can I get that in writing?". Part of being an adult is knowing which fights you could win, and which fights are absolutely worthless of your energy and time. Waving the "emergency exit button" clause for every little thing is definitely detrimental to pretty much anything, and therefore entirely useless. Moreover, leaving SE just for a "better vote timing cutoff" is entirely stupid. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 7:10 | comment | added | domotorp | I've changed Referendum to Poll in the title, and just added a link to a second related question - I hope these won't affect the votes... | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 18:18 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added second question
|
| Sep 22, 2016 at 16:03 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | So: after I voted, you changed the wording? | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 13:13 | comment | added | domotorp | I don't know anything about the possibility of implementing a change, but I'm sure that we can have our voice heard somewhere. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 12:44 | comment | added | user642796 | @Dilaton While there is certainly some amount of prestige attached to hosting MO, I don't think that it is so great that threats of a MOparture would heavily influence SE actions. (And note that I never questioned the appropriateness of this poll, just the name that was originally given to it, and whether or not there was any reason to think that it mattered.) | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 11:11 | comment | added | Dilaton | @arjafi the contract ensures that MO is still a free self-governed academic community who just has chosen to use the SE software. So people here legitimately have the right to do polls in any format concerning the needs of the community whenever they want to. If for example there accumulate too many features of the software that a significant part of the MO community considers to be negative or even obstructive (the Association Bonus and the Hot Question list come to mind) and SE refuses to change them on this site, there could be a referendum to MOExit the SE network ... ;-) | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 7:41 | comment | added | domotorp | @arjafi I've renamed it poll. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 7:41 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed name from referendum to poll
|
| Sep 22, 2016 at 3:31 | comment | added | user642796 | @Dilaton IANAL but I did not see anything in the letter/contract about SE customising their platform for the wishes of MO. Sure, site-specific customisations happen, but only when "the changes won't generally be surprising/confusing when you travel from one to the next" (Jaydles's answer on meta.se). Something like this time limit may or may not fall into that category, I don't know. Giving this question an official-sounding name like "referendum" with its connotations of finality is perhaps misleading, especially if in the end SE won't change this. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 20:02 | comment | added | Dilaton | @arjafi it is to be taken in account, that MO is not just another random site in the network, but the MO company has signed a special contract with the SE company upon joyning. So StackExchange better takes the needs of this community a bit more serious, than they conventially do with the requests of other sites ... | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 19:18 | comment | added | user642796 | Has anyone contacted SE to see if a site-specific change in this is even possible? Calling this a "referendum" seems somewhat premature if SE is unwilling/unable to make such a site-specific change should the users wish it. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 16:09 | comment | added | domotorp | @Stefan: Could you maybe detail in an answer how the system can be abused? Maybe there's a way to prevent serial un-upvoting without preventing individual once in a while. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 15:29 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | I think the purpose of limits like this is to limit possibilities of abuse. The time cutoff for changing votes limits e.g. serial un-upvoting. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 4:42 | comment | added | domotorp | I would like no vote change (or a shorter cutoff time). | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 4:42 | comment | added | domotorp | I would like vote change to be allowed anytime. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 4:41 | comment | added | domotorp | I would like a longer cutoff time. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 4:41 | comment | added | domotorp | I'm absolutely satisfied. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 4:40 | history | asked | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |