Moderator: Community Team

QFT, this would really help in clans!!edwinissweet wrote:yesssssssssssss.
This is a design problem that can be solved in 2 ways - a) make votes containers scrollable inside; b) do not make 100+ voters vote public.cena-rules wrote:The only problem is that in polls where 100's of people vote, if someone sets it to public, it will get fairly cramped and cluttered


I just wanted to point out that this will be one of the responses by the community. It will be inevitable, I know this will be a cool option, but it'll just turn many threads into flame wars, whether the original poster wanted it or not. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but that's how I see this.Dako wrote:Remember, that is an option - you are not forced to make the votes public. It will most useful for private discussions inside usergroups.
Can you explain the reference to my comment in your post, please?jsholty4690 wrote:Sounds a bit like card check to me.![]()
But seriously, I can see a lot of trolling as a result of this. Queen Herpes somewhat makes my case on page 7
Edit* However, I've sometimes wanted to know who voted for what on some polls.
Not extremely relevant, but somewhat. You weren't going out to attack the mods, but the mods thought you were attacking them, which started a small confrontation. I used it as an example to show what the Bumpage will look like if this is implemented.Queen_Herpes wrote:Can you explain the reference to my comment in your post, please?jsholty4690 wrote:Sounds a bit like card check to me.![]()
But seriously, I can see a lot of trolling as a result of this. Queen Herpes somewhat makes my case on page 7
Edit* However, I've sometimes wanted to know who voted for what on some polls.


Well, I think it will create some half-public votes out there. I guess if the votes are public and you don't want to expose your opinion (holy wars coming?) - don't vote in public votes.Masli wrote:I really like the Idea, 1 question : will it be an option when you vote 2 ? Sometimes people don't want others to know. So I think it should be an option for the one who votes 2 !
Btw, I voted yes
Oh, I like bananas 2, but had to make a choice

jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Well, this is just an option. And if you want to bother and create a multi for just a vote - you can do so now. As I already said - target user group of this feature will be private usergroups where people are mature and trust each other.pimpdave wrote:This is a terrible idea.
Secret ballot, and all that. Imagine all of the further bickering this will create. Also, it will encourage further proliferation of multi-accounts, so people can just vote and remain anonymous.

saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
That depends on a clan environment - if it is already aggressive there - yeah, witch hunts may start there. But I don't see a problem of people voting "No" in public. Anyway, most of "No" votes are discarded if they are not explained in comment below. Basically, small groups use votes not to create a statistic, but to find out if anyone has a veto vote on something. And I think since this suggestion will be an optional choice - I don't see a problem where a problematic issues is created as a private poll.Serbia wrote:And in a clan setting, which is an even smaller, more personal setting, an option like that will end up creating witch hunts. And not voting wouldn't even save that person, because a non-vote could be construed to be a vote against the popular majority, which essentially would create the same issue. I'm completely against this.
