Talk:Vote For and Against: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:34, 7 August 2005

Would "vote for and against as many as you like" be a worse idea? This would satisfy FBC and I guess if the version with the 50% rule is used, burying wouldn't be as big an issue as with average ratings (nothing to brag about though). --R.H. 09:54, 5 Aug 2005 (PDT)

With the 50% rule, it ~~wouldn't~~would satisfy FBC. In either version, you'd have the problem of what to do when all candidates are disqualified. Kevin Venzke 10:39, 6 Aug 2005 (PDT)

I really meant "vote for as many and against as many as you like" --R.H. 16:23, 6 Aug 2005 (PDT)

I know. When voters can do this, there is a possibility that all candidates will be disqualified. I wasn't right about it failing FBC, though. Kevin Venzke 08:34, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Would "vote for and against as many as you like" be a worse idea? This would satisfy FBC and I guess if the version with the 50% rule is used, burying wouldn't be as big an issue as with average ratings (nothing to brag about though). --[[User:R.H.|R.H.]] 09:54, 5 Aug 2005 (PDT)
-With the 50% rule, it wouldn't satisfy FBC. In either version, you'd have the problem of what to do when all candidates are disqualified. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 10:39, 6 Aug 2005 (PDT)
+With the 50% rule, it <S>wouldn't</S>'''would''' satisfy FBC. In either version, you'd have the problem of what to do when all candidates are disqualified. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 10:39, 6 Aug 2005 (PDT)
 I really meant "vote for as many and against as many as you like" --[[User:R.H.|R.H.]] 16:23, 6 Aug 2005 (PDT)
+I know. When voters can do this, there is a possibility that all candidates will be disqualified. I wasn't right about it failing FBC, though. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 08:34, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT)