Welcome to the polling community on imzy - for all your polling and public opinion purposes!

Welcome to the polling community on imzy - for all your polling and public opinion purposes!
Welcome to the polling community on imzy - for all your polling and public opinion purposes!
if you disallow anything, maybe just disallow polls about the 2016 presidential election until after november? That seems to be where a lot of the hostility lies.
I think the consensus is clear: Don't disallow anything wins by a landslide!
I just read through all the comments. I do like the idea of tagging. We definitely need a tag for "politics", as well as a tag for "US politics".
Added!
I would say keep serious political polls, but get rid of silly ones (e.g. the "Who would be a better president: a brick or a fish" type polls) and get rid of polls that are obviously trying to push an agenda, like the Jill Stein one that was made a few days ago.
Or the ones that were anti-Trump too, right? And the ones that were anti-Stein?
Yep.
I don't like the idea of censoring anything. I do like the idea of mandatory tagging of posts, and allowing people the ability to filter posts within the community by tags... like a settings page within the community, just for that user, that allows them to check on/off the tags that they want to see posts of... If they don't want US Politics posts, then they can un-check that tag, etc.
Honestly I'm puzzled by how many people see this as an issue of censorship. From my perspective it's basically spam control.
"Don't spam" is not censorship, even if it's elaborated to 'don't spam a particular topic that's been spammed here a lot recently and given current US events would likely continue if not stopped, despite being relevant to basically only one country many of whose residents could also do without more of it here considering how it's being spammed constantly by real life too'.
I think we should be able to filter posts by tags. That would solve all these issues. If someone wants to see everything, they can. If they don't want to see certain things, they should be able to opt-out of those things.
It's not censorship, it's stopping trolls and low quality content.
Or maybe it's stopping pro-Stein content?
What? No. I just said I'm fine with banning pro-Hillary and pro-Trump things too. Polls are made to get an unbiased assessment of people's opinions. Posts that are pro or anti someone or something totally negate the point of a poll.
So people are free to report those polls and if the poll isn't posted in good faith or good humor, then I'll remove it.
My judgement was that all of those polls were posted in good humor. Not in mean-spiritedness or dickishness.
In my opinion, the reactions against those polls were more dickish than the polls themselves.
Polls like this and this aren't posted in "good humor". They're posted to get people angry and push an agenda.
Well, the first one seems to have been posted to try to counteract the overtly anti-Stein comments and posts that appeared prior to it, and the answers are pretty tongue-in-cheek, if you ask me. It's pretty obvious the humor there.
The second one is also posted in good humor, except that it's much lower effort, obviously, and not nearly as funny as the first. I would say that it borders on dickish and would be a candidate for removal.
On the first poll, you obviously haven't seen that anon's other comments. He openly bashes every one who isn't voting for Stein. So the post obviously wasn't in good fun.
The second one, was obviously made to get people voting for Stein angry.
Like I said. The point of polls is to get an unbiased assessment of people's opinions. Posts like these aren't unbiased. Would you trust a poll saying that most Americans prefer vanilla ice cream if the polls options where "would you rather eat vanilla ice cream and get $1,000,000 or eat chocolate ice cream and every puppy dies?" I imagine you wouldn't. So why have polls like that on here?
I did delete some conversations for being dicks. But if I went around deleting every snarky comment from every political thread there wouldn't be much left!
It's not the comments that I'm angry at. It's the polls themselves. Polls inspire debates, so it's fine if people argue in the comments. But when the polls are made to specifically have people agree with the OP, that's not ok.
I think you need to take this less seriously.
The barrier to entry for creating a competing poll comm is pretty low. If someone doesn't like the content of a poll you can scroll right past it. It's really easy to do.
Not when 3 pages of my feed are taken over by political discussion of a country on the other side of the world and scrolling just seems to bring up more polls.
Edit: okay sorry that was harsh -- it's been a bad day and I'm grumpy. I'm fine with polls, but I do believe we exaggerated a bit these past few days. How about doing like other people are suggesting, only allowing a certain number of polls on the same topic?
Maybe it was a bit harsh but you are entitled to respond in any way that you see fit. If I couldn't handle a harsh response then I really wouldn't have much business posting my comment to begin with. Or I could ignore your response. Or I could leave polls. Or I could block you. There are plenty of tools for solving these things.
Also I don't really think your reply was harsh.
You can also report the posts and state your gripes and the community leaders can use that feedback to better regulate their communities so that they don't annoy users.
Disallow bigotry, allow anything else, but maybe have a temporary moratorium on a particular topic if we've had loads of very similar polls in a short time.
Maybe we should just redirect everyone who wants to post non-serious political polls over to Political Satire. That might be a good compromise.
The options that someone puts on the poll should be unbiased. For example there was someone putting a poll about Jill Stein with a very biased view against Hillary Clinton, that's fine but they shouldn't be used to condescend against people with different opinions, when the whole point of the poll is to gather different opinions.
So, by the same token, any post that shows bias against Donald Trump should also be removed?
I did do a "Donald Trump vs Jimmy Reed" poll, which some might argue has an anti-Donald bias - since Jimmy Reed isn't a candidate in the running. But I also did a "Hillary Clinton vs Jimmy Reed" poll, so... There were no Donald votes in the Donald one, but the Hillary one got quite a few Hillary votes. I'd like to think it's a good sign that many of us are moving away from conservatism... whatever many of us might think of Hillary in particular.
Baby steps, I suppose. Sad that people were more progressive 100 years ago than they are today. Maybe the labor movement actually getting legislation passed has made everyone weak and complacent?
I think Jimmy Reed was progressive for his time, and more progressive than many people today are. I think he would be particularly pro-Hillary or pro-Jill, although I think Donald would be about the first candidate he would publicly oppose. I think he didn't have much use for partisan politics, period. He wouldn't have any more use of snarking at Republicans than he would would snarking at Democrats.
Personally, I do go for Jill - although I don't really like her stance on autism. But I think I agree with Jill on more issues than I do with Hillary. Also, I think we should stop with the "us against them" mentality. Jimmy might be more liberal than most Democrats today are, but he wouldn't have much use for bashing from liberals anymore than he would have with bashing from conservatives.
I would imagine that Jimmy Reed would be in favor of Reparations, in which case, he would not be voting for Hillary, but would be voting for Jill, since the Green Party's platform specifically calls for reparations.
I feel like you can have too much of a good thing. Surely after there have been, say, three polls on essentially the same topic (be it serious or otherwise) in a short period of time, people can agree that the limit has probably been reached.
Disallow some things but not others - I would say disallow polls that are clearly taking the joke too far (i.e. once there had been a couple of who would make the best president polls, the community got a bit flooded with those which went a bit far)