2
$\begingroup$

Looking at the number of votes this and this question has received, I would like to ask everyone interested to cast their vote whether they are happy with the current time cutoff for changing votes on questions/answers/comments in the first few comments to this question. Warning, you can change your mind only for less than a minute! Also, feel free to share your reason/opinion in answers/comments.

$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I'm absolutely satisfied. $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 21 '16 at 4:41
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I would like a longer cutoff time. $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 21 '16 at 4:41
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I would like vote change to be allowed anytime. $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 21 '16 at 4:42
  • $\begingroup$ I would like no vote change (or a shorter cutoff time). $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 21 '16 at 4:42
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Kohl Sep 21 '16 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 21 '16 at 16:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Sep 21 '16 at 19:18
  • $\begingroup$ @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 ... $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Sep 21 '16 at 20:02
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Sep 22 '16 at 3:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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.) $\endgroup$ – user642796 Sep 22 '16 at 12:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't know anything about the possibility of implementing a change, but I'm sure that we can have our voice heard somewhere. $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 22 '16 at 13:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So: after I voted, you changed the wording? $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Sep 22 '16 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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... $\endgroup$ – domotorp Sep 23 '16 at 7:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 24 '16 at 4:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 24 '16 at 12:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .