Polls

[quinne]

Why doesn't MN have the functionality for posters to create polls with comments below for those who have more to say? I think it would work well especially on the AIBU section. The categories could be:-

1. you are being VERY unreasonable.
2. You are being unreasonable
3. Neutral
4. You are being reasonable
5. You are so right!

But don't we just type that out ourself, complete with our comments?
Why would they spend time setting up something we already do? (confused)

other forums do it and it does work. some threads go on for pages and pages and you end up thinking does anyone have an opposing opinion? This way you can see how many agree/ disagree quickly and you don't have to read through all the e.g. the one right now on the woman who is complaining about her nanny not preparing fresh food.

Yes but that one was funny, hilarious in fact and encompassed all sorts of views and opinions - on and off topic.

That would not have developed in the same way if we all just turned up and checked a box, it would stifle the debate and interaction IMO.

Well you know what they say,'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'

no one has tried to roast me yet.. I just don't like that sort of mob behaviour. If you think people are behaving badly .. defend or look away but DON'T JOIN IN!!

Why do people want to keep making MN like every other board out there?

That's the part I find Unreasonable.

Hi, thanks for the suggestions - shall certainly run it past MNHQ when they're back in the office.
However we think that what makes MN special is the fact that we do encourage people to express their views, as they're often informative, interesting and sometimes very comical! And a poll may diminish that.
If you disagree, however, do let us know

You've lost me there a bit tee2072. What are you trying to say about MN.

I don't mean just check a box. i mean check a box and also comment if you like. I especially dislike the MN roasting specialism though and maybe that's why i ended up scanning the thread rather than reading it (and thus couldn't work out how many people thought it was reasonable versus unreasonable).

What kind of person launches an attack on someone they don't know just because they have the safety of anonymity? if that is why MN is special then i am not interested.

I sort agree and sort of don't. it can be an amazing resource for info, tips etc and also provide support for those who otherwise may not be able to find help. But there is also the aspect of aggressive pack behaviour - they even have a MN word for it "roasting" - and that sort of thing dissuades rather than encourages those who hold an alternative point of view to post at all.

Roasting is not an MN word for it quinne, it is a word used before even the advent of chat forums to describe what happens when someone is told in no unmcertain terms that they are not behaving well.

I am sorry you have found things you dislike on MN but it is the nature of chat forums that there will be all types of people, all types of converstation and what have you. There are areas that are more volotile than others. People who do not like a volotile area stay away and people who do seek it out. It is this that, IMO makes MN special, that ability to accept all types of use.

By all means tell people if you think they are out of order, in fact it is one of the pre-requisites for self-moderation but I do think attempting to stifle people so they cannot speak freely (even if they are wrong) is not the right approach.

no attempt or suggestion at stifling free speech from me but exactly that from those who like to roast (or bully as I think of it in the real world)

maybe you should address people on the threads as you see them, that would give them the opportunity to respond. If you want to throw around accusations of bullying but are not prepared to give the "bullies" the opportunity to respond then you are not behaving much better TBH.

Maybe I should, maybe I have once or twice but do you really think they listen when they are enjoying giving someone a good roasting?

Anyway my suggestion of a poll was just a small improvement I thought would help MN. Sometimes the questions are interesting but who wants to read 15 pages to find out the answer? If I really wanted MN to address the roasting/ bullying I'd have started this thread askign for tighter moderating

There is already a thread for tighter moderating quinne, I think it was dsomething like 150 against 1 for at the last count.

Yes people do listen if someone points out they are going over the top, not always all of them and not always straight away but they do. THe may not agree of course and you have to accept that you may not be right in everyones eyes.

I don't really get your point about the poll though, would you display the results at the top of the page then? What would happen if the op added more information part way through? Could the voters go back and change their votes or would they all have to then vote 2 more times to cancel out the first vote?

TBH I think you are missing the point of threads like WWYD and AIBU. People who want a simple yes no usually say that, people who are feeling fragile usually say that, and people who post tend to be wanting opinons, thoughts and feelings not a decision made for them.

Anyway the pasta thread seems to be a troll and it seemed to be pretty clear from the off that it was a troll - and was responded to accordingly. Don't take things to heart too much - the Op (if they were real) certainly did not!

I would not be in favour of tighter moderating either, but a code of conduct might be appropriate given that some people do seem very vulnerable (not talking about the pasta thread now).

I don't think she was a troll because she was too life like- I know people exactly like her.
And I am not taking it personally any more than you are! What happens on Mn makes zero difference to me. I only stopped by to ask about IXL.(hope you are not secretly taking it seriously or I'll have to retract that last statement!)

There is a code of conduct quinne but you are quite right, it does sometimes get out of hand still.

The thing is I think it is hard for people in the middle of a row (even those not directly involved) to pull back and say "wow that was not on" and report it toot sweet. If that were happening then things like the events I think you are refering to would be bought back under control much quicker.

I don't know what the answer is but the question is bandyed (bandied??) around on here every so often, usually after a big upset) and no-one ever seems to come up with a solution.

So, anyway, back to the poll idea, what about my Qs?

answer to your question: give all info on teh first post

and other implied question... tick a box and make any extra comments at the bottom. (this way the more timid may still voice their opinion without fear of being roasted for dissenting from the majority view)

People don't give all the info in the first post because there is often stuff that they do not realise would be relavant, points are raised by posters that are addressed and reveal new information and so on. The only way to do this would be if the op started a new thread every time they thought of something else - and people would get really bored of voting on thread after thread on the same subject wouldn't they?

But won't people who want to Roast still do it via the comments box? I am not seeing how this will stop roasting TBH.

Your last point is so true, Quinne. Sometimes I have what sees like a tiny minority viewpoint (even if it's just to be completely on the fence), but I don't say anything because I don't want to be flamed.

Then I wonder how many others feel the same.

Leave MN alone.

Being different is what makes it the best!!!

But so what if you are flamed? You're faceless user name - no one can see you, no one knows who you are.

I don't understand people who say they are too scared to post their views on an annoymous internet forum. I do wonder how they manage RL TBH

It's like you could agree in writing but the OP could also see in one fell swoop that 900 MNers thought she was being VERY unreasonable but 2 thought she was being reasonable.

It could work lol