NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 7 Aug 2016 17:05:39 +0300
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From:
Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:29:31PM +0200, Niels ten Oever ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Even though I think the regular display of +1's is a signal of mutual
> support and camaraderie. I have the feeling that sometimes it is
> drowning out other discussions about content on the list.

So it is. Elections tend to have that effect, dominating news and
discussions, not only here but everywhere where they are felt to
matter. So in a sense it is a good sign: indication that people care
about the elections.

So I don't see it as a big problem in that sense.

A bigger concern is if it is indeed discourages new people from
running. I'm not sure if that is the case, but in any event I'd like
to encourage people to think otherwise, especially those new thinking
if they should run: Those +1 messages don't tell who people will vote,
as noted many even +1 opposing candidates.

So for anybody considering candidacy: don't worry about those +1
messages to others. They're just talk.

Another concern voiced is that +1 messages may influence the election.
Of course they may, just as well as any message about any candidate or
would-be candidate. Indeed they can be seen as a form of campaigning.
But there's nothing inherently wrong in that either. Starting
campaigning before official nominations is not unusual in other
democratic elections either.

That said, I don't have a strong view about the usefulness
of the +1's, but I don't see it as seriously bad either.
Nor do I see it useful to instigate a formal rule against it,
although we could discourage it if we want.

But for now that's what we're used to doing, so let's just
make it clear what they mean and what they don't mean:
they're indications of support for the nominations,
for the process, not votes or even indication of how
one intends to vote.

For my part, I will not +1 or otherwise publicly endorse any
candidates in this election, and I trust nobody will take it
as an expression of distrust or lack of support.

I'll leave last word to Niels, who got this exactly right:

> May I also remind people that the voting happens later, so the
> candidates need your support is even more then.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2