Thread Suggestion: Best Answer Voting

Sandra Murphy33 said:I’m inclined to agree.

The older elections will likely carry more weight now, which might actually allow us to integrate some fresh perspectives into the mix👍

Festina lente

( ... though I’m skeptical that this approach will actually help us become more multi-faceted on the platform😉 ... )

Great

exactly as you put it

Festina lente

As far as being multi-topic goes, that isn't really an issue because we aren't even multi-topic yet,

🙂))

Just kidding.

There are just so many philosophical topics out there that you could dive into with real hunger,
- but I really think we should aim for more participation—getting more folks on the forum to actually jump in and engage.

🙂

So, looking at how things are moving, maybe alongside this week's Election question, we could spin off a brand new thread,
titled

neophobia—the fear of the new
(meaning that dread of change where people cling to old structures in every aspect of life, including social dynamics, which ties right back into the philosophy of freedom)
- and since we're already having such a heated debate, it could all sort of tie together into one cohesive theme,
so if anyone is feeling inspired, shall we get it started?

Basically, can I take the lead on it, or is someone else interested?

steelridge58 said:Great

exactly as you put it

Festina lente

As far as being multi-topic goes, that isn't really an issue because we aren't even multi-topic yet,

🙂))

Just kidding.

There are just so many philosophical topics out there that you could dive into with real hunger,
- but I really think we should aim for more participation—getting more folks on the forum to actually jump in and engage.

🙂

So, looking at how things are moving, maybe alongside this week's Election question, we could spin off a brand new thread,
titled

neophobia—the fear of the new
(meaning that dread of change where people cling to old structures in every aspect of life, including social dynamics, which ties right back into the philosophy of freedom)
- and since we're already having such a heated debate, it could all sort of tie together into one cohesive theme,
so if anyone is feeling inspired, shall we get it started?

Basically, can I take the lead on it, or is someone else interested?

There’s actually a specific term for that called "misoneism." It’s pretty much tied to conservatism, which honestly feels like the real conversation we should be having here.

Amanda Jackson5 said:There’s actually a specific term for that called "misoneism." It’s pretty much tied to conservatism, which honestly feels like the real conversation we should be having here.

I'm honestly not quite sure if bringing up "misoneism" would actually fit the vibe of what we're discussing here,

"The fear of anything new is basically just how a rational mind operates when it’s desperate to define, explain, and categorize everything into a neat little box just so it can feel like it has some sense of control and direction; meanwhile, any innovation that refuses to fit into those pre-set boundaries feels like a direct threat to the established order, which means this whole idea could easily slide into the realm of philosophy of mind, looking at whether true freedom is even possible if we can't break free from the rigid structures our own logic imposes on us."

I’m inclined to agree that we should dedicate more time to the "Answers" section before moving to the actual Election—it would be ideal if the questions remained within a philosophical scope; otherwise, the "Comments" section just turns into a debate that really belongs in our other subforums.

Besides, given how things work, I suspect Amanda Jackson5 would just end up demanding an entirely separate, even more deeply philosophical forum altogether... 😁

Maybe we should switch to a two-week cycle for the next round, and instead of just this quick two-day window, we could set aside three or four days for voting to make it easier on everyone.

Amanda Jackson5 actually brought up a question in the Comment section about whether someone is allowed to vote for themselves, though I honestly haven't a clue myself.
I’d really love to get your take on this—what do you all think?
If we all decide that self-voting is okay, then I'll go ahead and update the rules, but if not, we can just leave everything exactly as it stands now.

steelridge58 said:Maybe we should switch to a two-week cycle for the next round, and instead of just this quick two-day window, we could set aside three or four days for voting to make it easier on everyone.

Amanda Jackson5 actually brought up a question in the Comment section about whether someone is allowed to vote for themselves, though I honestly haven't a clue myself.
I’d really love to get your take on this—what do you all think?
If we all decide that self-voting is okay, then I'll go ahead and update the rules, but if not, we can just leave everything exactly as it stands now.

Just give everyone an extra vote and call it a day. Problem solved.

steelridge58 said:Maybe we should switch to a two-week cycle for the next round, and instead of just this quick two-day window, we could set aside three or four days for voting to make it easier on everyone.

Amanda Jackson5 actually brought up a question in the Comment section about whether someone is allowed to vote for themselves, though I honestly haven't a clue myself.
I’d really love to get your take on this—what do you all think?
If we all decide that self-voting is okay, then I'll go ahead and update the rules, but if not, we can just leave everything exactly as it stands now.

Since multiple voting is technically permitted, I suppose I could limit the frequency by capping it at five votes per person for one's own entry...😁

I’d honestly say we should start voting for the absolute worst answer too.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Since multiple voting is technically permitted, I suppose I could limit the frequency by capping it at five votes per person for one's own entry...😁

Give me a break...😁
The idea hadn't even crossed my mind. I mean, voting for myself more than once would be borderline immoral.

And honestly, there’s a real chance this could turn into something totally immoral, since that kind of influence just opens the door wide for people to start manipulating votes...

So, for those reasons, I have to say no to the proposal.

😁

steelridge58 said:Maybe we should switch to a two-week cycle for the next round, and instead of just this quick two-day window, we could set aside three or four days for voting to make it easier on everyone.

Amanda Jackson5 actually brought up a question in the Comment section about whether someone is allowed to vote for themselves, though I honestly haven't a clue myself.
I’d really love to get your take on this—what do you all think?
If we all decide that self-voting is okay, then I'll go ahead and update the rules, but if not, we can just leave everything exactly as it stands now.

Why not? I mean, if the whole ethical point is trying to look at your own actions the same way you judge everyone else—and judging others the same way you judge yourself—then there shouldn't be any reason someone couldn't vote for their own choice if they really feel it's the best one.

(Of course, if you're the type who's skeptical about how objective you actually are when judging yourself versus others, you'll probably be more careful if your own answer looks too good. But if you don't see yourself as a potential "sinner" and think you've reached some kind of absolute truth, then I guess there's no real barrier there. 😉 )

James Lee77 said:Why not? I mean, if the whole ethical point is trying to look at your own actions the same way you judge everyone else—and judging others the same way you judge yourself—then there shouldn't be any reason someone couldn't vote for their own choice if they really feel it's the best one.

(Of course, if you're the type who's skeptical about how objective you actually are when judging yourself versus others, you'll probably be more careful if your own answer looks too good. But if you don't see yourself as a potential "sinner" and think you've reached some kind of absolute truth, then I guess there's no real barrier there. 😉 )

First and foremost, we have to acknowledge the inherent flaws in democratic voting systems—the winners aren't necessarily the best choices (in this specific case, at least), but rather the ones who garner the most votes.

Take the brave soul Dass, for instance—he stood his ground and insisted his answer was the superior one, yet he didn't receive a single vote. It remains entirely possible that his response was indeed the best, despite receiving zero support.

So, let’s be clear from the jump: the best doesn't always win. In that sense, even if we were to cast a vote for ourselves, it wouldn't fundamentally alter the outcome unless we were dealing with a dead heat... and even then, if Dass had voted for himself, he still would have lost.

Still—as far as an experiment goes—it is perfectly feasible to hold a vote on this very question. If the majority decides that self-voting is permissible, well, fine... that won't change the fact that democracy is a flawed mechanism.

I say we just toss in two more options: "None of these work for me" and "None of these work except my own."

If you let someone vote for themselves, it opens the door to all sorts of math games and manipulation—like if there’s a tie and someone just casts their own vote to tip the scales in their favor—and while I really don't think anyone in our group would actually stoop to that level, the system would technically allow it to happen.

So, is that even fair?

Personally, I don't think it is.
But look, I can go ahead and set up a poll asking whether we should even permit self-voting, so we can all weigh in on it together, okay?

Edit: The poll is live now.

Should we vote on whether we even want to vote first? 🙂 Nah. It’s fine as it is, though maybe things wouldn't be too bad if we did it anyway.

James Lee77 said:Should we vote on whether we even want to vote first? 🙂 Nah. It’s fine as it is, though maybe things wouldn't be too bad if we did it anyway.

Hahaha, yeah, sure, why not just take a detour through a circle instead?

😁

To be honest, my bigger headache—if you can even call it that—is more about the people who hang out in the "Answers" section but just don't bother to vote, that overall lack of engagement, which really makes me wonder
- what the hell is driving that behavior?

steelridge58 said:To be honest, my bigger headache—if you can even call it that—is more about the people who hang out in the "Answers" section but just don't bother to vote, that overall lack of engagement, which really makes me wonder
- what the hell is driving that behavior?

The reason might just be that there isn't an option for "None of these are the right answer."

ruggedraven36 said:I say we just toss in two more options: "None of these work for me" and "None of these work except my own."

I am formally requesting that the administration here at the forum acquire a software tool capable of implementing the Single-party proposal.

Poll responses—beyond the standard (multiple) choices of this—that should definitely include:
1. I have no idea, and this is my final word
2. I have no idea, but I might give it some thought...
3. None of the above
4. None of the above except for my own, provided I haven't already stated otherwise
5. Not in a million years
6. Love you all
7. I’m retracting my vote; I want to cast it again

steelridge58 said:If you let someone vote for themselves, it opens the door to all sorts of math games and manipulation—like if there’s a tie and someone just casts their own vote to tip the scales in their favor—and while I really don't think anyone in our group would actually stoop to that level, the system would technically allow it to happen.

So, is that even fair?

Personally, I don't think it is.
But look, I can go ahead and set up a poll asking whether we should even permit self-voting, so we can all weigh in on it together, okay?

Edit: The poll is live now.

It’s not unethical if the other person already cast their vote for themselves.