Make some type of ebay-like feedback section, but instead of feedback, make it yes or no... then a text box with your reason or w/e (which would post on that persons topic) which is somewhat like ebay, then have it so you can access the rest of the people in your usercp, so you dont have to look if you've voted or not, making the system easier,better, and a lot more organized
New private voting method
#1
Posted 16 December 2006 - 04:56 PM
Make some type of ebay-like feedback section, but instead of feedback, make it yes or no... then a text box with your reason or w/e (which would post on that persons topic) which is somewhat like ebay, then have it so you can access the rest of the people in your usercp, so you dont have to look if you've voted or not, making the system easier,better, and a lot more organized
#2
Posted 16 December 2006 - 05:00 PM
Could you make what you are trying to say more understandable?
#4
Posted 16 December 2006 - 05:11 PM
lol.
I think our method of voting is fine as is. Should normal members even know how we actually vote for people any ways?
#5
Posted 16 December 2006 - 05:21 PM
#6
Posted 16 December 2006 - 05:42 PM
#7
Posted 16 December 2006 - 05:52 PM
I would vote against my friends if i dont think they are ready.
#9
Posted 16 December 2006 - 06:37 PM
So your theory is shot to shit Regental.
Mmhm same here.
And if I'm not mistaken they were thinking of another method of doing the applications but I don't know the progress on that/if they just scratched it.
#13
Posted 16 December 2006 - 09:11 PM
IT IS STILL GOING TO ONLY BE PRIVATE MEMBERS. (regular members are NOT going to have anything to do with this)
I was thinking in the PRIVATE MEMBER'S usercp's, someone could make a mod so that it shows all of the pending applications you need to accept (voting yes) or decline (voting no) for that person. You would still be able to go into the persons topic and discuss, its just a more organized way and is easier because lets say you vote/discuss 3 applications out of a total of 20 applications, but you had to go to the store with only finishing 3-4, you come back and forget the ones you did, so this would eliminate that since it wouldnt be in your usercp anymore (since its being deleted as a pending app)
#14
Posted 16 December 2006 - 09:17 PM
#15
Posted 16 December 2006 - 10:14 PM
Thats the whole point though, isn't it? We vote in people that are agreeable, or at the very least, people that we can agree to disagree with. I'll tell you right now, I've voted in people that I didn't like at the time. Hawk and marine, for instance, have dynamically different viewpoints than me, yet when it time to vote on them, I voted yes because they deserved it.
People aren't as biased as you'd think.
IT IS STILL GOING TO ONLY BE PRIVATE MEMBERS. (regular members are NOT going to have anything to do with this)
I was thinking in the PRIVATE MEMBER'S usercp's, someone could make a mod so that it shows all of the pending applications you need to accept (voting yes) or decline (voting no) for that person. You would still be able to go into the persons topic and discuss, its just a more organized way and is easier because lets say you vote/discuss 3 applications out of a total of 20 applications, but you had to go to the store with only finishing 3-4, you come back and forget the ones you did, so this would eliminate that since it wouldnt be in your usercp anymore (since its being deleted as a pending app)
Thats just unnecessary. The current system works just as well. Most private members get the idea that the only thing they have to do as private members is vote, and they're happy to do so. Besides, it adds another step and page load to voting, which isn't necessary.
It died. Along with the scavenger hunt mod, the codies mod, the trophy case mod, and many others. Sl can only do so much... and there are always more pressing things than private.
#16
Posted 16 December 2006 - 10:43 PM
I wasn't clear on this; I was talking about friends you know in person. If you know them in real life, you're very much inclined to voting yes on their application, no matter how good of a member they are.
I do agree with you, though - that is the whole point. Sorry for not making that clear.
#17
Posted 16 December 2006 - 10:46 PM
I do agree with you, though - that is the whole point. Sorry for not making that clear.
Ah, well, thats a different matter. But seeing as most people on codex are from scattered places around the globe (with the exception of a small gathering of codexians in southern California) so it is severely unlikely that more than one or two people will ever know an applicant in real life.
#18
Posted 16 December 2006 - 10:47 PM
People aren't as biased as you'd think.
Thats just unnecessary. The current system works just as well. Most private members get the idea that the only thing they have to do as private members is vote, and they're happy to do so. Besides, it adds another step and page load to voting, which isn't necessary.
It died. Along with the scavenger hunt mod, the codies mod, the trophy case mod, and many others. Sl can only do so much... and there are always more pressing things than private.
um it LESSENS pages you need to load actually. Unless you vote for everyone member on one page right now already, it would be a smaller amount of pages needed to load
#19
Posted 16 December 2006 - 10:54 PM
Instead of going to a single page and discussing, reading other peoples opinions, and voting, you'd have to go to 1 to read the app, then goto 2 (your CP) to vote. Unless I'm totally mistaken on your method?
#20
Posted 16 December 2006 - 11:08 PM
so instead of clicking on each application through lots of threads all messy, you click on the applications you have to still vote on, instead of accidentally re-clicking an application and figuring out you already voted
Edited by Fatal, 16 December 2006 - 11:09 PM.
#21
Posted 17 December 2006 - 12:12 AM
Inside UserCP, have a list with all the pending applications that you haven't voted on.
From there, leave it to the normal system.
Just an easier system to access / remind you of applications to be voted on.
If that's not what you were trying to say, Robby...if it was, I made it more understandable!
#22
Posted 17 December 2006 - 12:13 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users