Increased Transparency in TB Votes
 

This subject has come up in the Friendly Announcement thread. Originally posted by Jackal:

I figured a thread to discuss this is a good idea. I'll be hitting the Alert a Moderator button to have discussion from the other thread moved here.

As I posted in the other thread:

We (TB) implemented the public announcement of when a motion will pass/fail once a motion gathers (or doesn't) enough votes to pass, so FTers don't continue to argue for/against something if a decision has been made.

The list of who voted yes/no/abstain is made public when all votes are in or the 2 week voting period ends, whichever happens first.

Even if a vote goes the full two weeks, to paraphrase a comment either in this or another thread, this isn't Congress/the United Nations. The FT world will not come to an end.

I don't see the point of amending the TB guidelines for a time stamp.

I'm trying to think of what pressing benefit to FT is accomplished by knowing that someone voted at 2:53 am on (pick any date in the 2-week period).

Amending TB guidelines to add a time stamp ranks up there with the seriously, this is what TB concerns itself w/ chain of thought IMO.

Cheers.

I didn't suggest this and don't see tremendous value in it beyond the general advantage of greater transparency. I have absolutely no objection to adding a time-stamp and would vote for it if formally proposed. As I said in the other thread, I require absolutely no confidentiality in my TalkBoard responsibilities.

Bruce

I completely agree. Happy to offer full transparency behind my voting.

Me neither especially since this seems aimed at one particular TB member.

Not necessarily. Transparency is a good unto itself. More is always better.

Bruce

If this takes hold long term, that member will eventually time out. My reason for pushing this is because of the general demand for greater TB transparency.

Do we all already voluntarily say in the threads in this forum how we vote when we vote and why?

I too am all for transparency, but how many of us can say we have led by example?

To me this is a half-measure. Let's make it mandatory for TB members to explain each of our votes in the public TB forum at the time we make that vote.

Which is still only a half measure (so the OP is, by my calculations, actually a quarter measure :)), because I still think that if we want total transparency we should make the private TB forum open as read-only for all posters.

Oh I certainly can. I was one of two people to vote no on the time delay motion and I reported why, and then was shouted at, for my opinions.

If there are going to be timestamps on TB votes, then we should go back to all of the horrendously quick votes that have occurred over the last year and a third. People who voted for major changes almost immediately after it was possible to caste their votes should be held accountable for those actions.

I'm one of those people and I'm happy to take credit for it. I vote quickly, that is a fact. I have no shame in that. I might also add that we've had no horrendously quick votes because the votes have invariably been delayed by a single member despite most of them being 8-0 at that point.

I'm happy to be held accountable, the question is, does the one person who held up votes for more than a week feel the same?

You're welcome to your opinion, but it's just that: your opinion. Whether I or any other TB member voted in a fashion you deemed "horrendously quick" does not make that vote wrong. Nor should the voter be "held accountable for those actions" any more than someone who held onto his/her vote until the 11th hour and voted "poorly" in my opinion. Time has no bearing on the "correctness" of a vote.

And count me among those who are more than happy to be "held accountable" for however I vote. Fast, slow, however. I will always be able to explain my vote.

Same here.

And just to show that I can be pedantic, too, votes are cast, not "caste"!

Bruce

I cannot help observing that someone who objects strenuously to criticism of her cautiously slow voting happily castigates others for "horrendously quick" voting.

Bruce

CMK10, I don't believe that time stamps for votes exist in vBulletin. If they do, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, it's too much work with too much potential for dispute.