I do think this was done as democratically as was practical, but let me reply to a few of the points raised...
Inevitably, it's not going to be easy to get a large number of members involved in each and every poll. But, for a forum this size, I think we got a reasonable snapshot of regular forum contributors (who, after all, are most affected by signatures). The polls ran for a full week, which I think is about the right time frame. And in the most prominent forum - News and Announcements.
In most cases, the votes were fairly overwhelming. The one poll that perhaps could have had a more convincing outcome was the one about external links (8-4); a larger turnout would, admittedly, have been better. Nothing is set in stone and we can always hold a further poll if there is a groundswell of opinion to change it. However, I do think that, as a principle, we shouldn't re-run polls for at least 2-3 months unless there is a very good reason to do so. At the very least, we should give the idea some time to see how it works out in practice + see my response to Denant further down in defence of this policy
kevinchess1 wrote:I'm guessin it does
It eseems a shame that ALL of the 3 votes on sigs wwere to encourage/allow RY to restrict them
A backward step I feel
It seems a bit unfair to characterise it that way. Given that the previous policy was a complete free-for-all, then any proposal - by definition - was going to involve some kind of restriction
Oh and by the way, I didn't vote on any of them
Does that include mine? For blood donation....something you never know when you may need
Let me try to convince you that this new policy will not detract from your wish to encourage visitors to that site. In fact, I think it will actually help. May I suggest a course of action...
Create a new topic about giving blood, with a prominent link to the blood donation site at the top - and then link to that topic from your signature. Use that topic to explain why blood donation is so important, about the shortage of donors, how easy and painless it is etc. This will hopefully start a conversation about the topic amongst imutual members, which would act as a much better advert for the cause than a simple external link in your signature.
And perhaps, in that thread, ask your fellow members to commit to making a blood donation in the near future, and to reply to the thread once they've done so. You can then update your signature with the number of pledges e.g. "X imutual members have pledged to give blood. Join them!". Signatures that never change can soon get ignored - yours will have a constant point of interest.
In fact, I will be one of the first to make such a pledge, having failed to donate blood for many years
I do think this was done as democratically as was practical, but let me reply to a few of the points raised...
Inevitably, it's not going to be easy to get a large number of members involved in each and every poll. But, for a forum this size, I think we got a reasonable snapshot of regular forum contributors (who, after all, are most affected by signatures). The polls ran for a full week, which I think is about the right time frame. And in the most prominent forum - News and Announcements.
In most cases, the votes were fairly overwhelming. The one poll that perhaps could have had a more convincing outcome was the one about external links (8-4); a larger turnout would, admittedly, have been better. Nothing is set in stone and we can always hold a further poll if there is a groundswell of opinion to change it. However, I do think that, as a principle, we shouldn't re-run polls for at least 2-3 months unless there is a very good reason to do so. At the very least, we should give the idea some time to see how it works out in practice + see my response to Denant further down in defence of this policy
[quote="kevinchess1"]I'm guessin it does
It eseems a shame that ALL of the 3 votes on sigs wwere to encourage/allow RY to restrict them :thumbdown:
A backward step I feel[/quote]
It seems a bit unfair to characterise it that way. Given that the previous policy was a complete free-for-all, then any proposal - by definition - was going to involve some kind of restriction :?
Oh and by the way, I didn't vote on any of them :P
[quote]Does that include mine? For blood donation....something you never know when you may need[/quote]
Let me try to convince you that this new policy will not detract from your wish to encourage visitors to that site. In fact, I think it will actually help. May I suggest a course of action...
Create a new topic about giving blood, with a prominent link to the blood donation site at the top - and then link to that topic from your signature. Use that topic to explain why blood donation is so important, about the shortage of donors, how easy and painless it is etc. This will hopefully start a conversation about the topic amongst imutual members, which would act as a much better advert for the cause than a simple external link in your signature.
And perhaps, in that thread, ask your fellow members to commit to making a blood donation in the near future, and to reply to the thread once they've done so. You can then update your signature with the number of pledges e.g. "X imutual members have pledged to give blood. Join them!". Signatures that never change can soon get ignored - yours will have a constant point of interest.
In fact, I will be one of the first to make such a pledge, having failed to donate blood for many years :oops:
