Long time non-posting lurker who de-lurked and joined after the jump to Discourse throwing in my two cents.
I voted to keep the pit the same. The SDMB has long been a place to argue/debate/discuss topics that sometimes are controversial. The pit has long acted as a sort of release valve where posters who, while in the heat of a passionate debate, need a place to blow off steam and say what they’re really thinking, whether it’s to call a poster disingenuous, a troll, a liar, or a general all-around asshole, without that toxicity bleeding into the other fora.
IMO, if pit nonsense is bleeding out into other forums, the answer is to report the post, not to get rid of the pit.
Lastly, I don’t really have much reason personally to post in the pit as I haven’t been around long enough as a poster to have beef with other posters, and as a poster I try to remain civil and not a jerk so as not to get pitted myself, but I sure enjoy a good pit thread and I’d hate to see them go away.
Look it is right there- “No changes are necessary” =53%. Sure others did not vote for a specific change, or voted for other choices. But 53% of the voters said “No changes are necessary”.
So you can either say “53% of all votes are for keeping the Pit the same” or “72% of all voters voted for keeping the Pit the same”. Both statements are true. The second is probably the more useful one.
I voted not to change anything to do with the Pit, not because I’ve ever pitted anyone or been in the habit of furiously excoriating pittees, but because it’s a somewhat entertaining board feature and there’d be folks who’d just bust if they didn’t have a venom outlet.
Good ways not to get pitted in my view are avoiding getting into knock-down drag-out exchanges on “controversial” subjects (make your point in one or a few posts, then depart), and not employing disingenuous tactics (for instance, JAQing off).
I found one poster annoying because he repeatedly made unsupportable, ridiculous claims about how people to his left on the political spectrum commit damaging acts of unspeakable hypocrisy. This resulted in factual debunkings, not always super-polite, after which as likely as not, he’d magnanimously concede that he was wrong - only to start over with a new thread on the same flawed premise.*
Pit threads have a habit of petering out fairly quickly when their subject does not obligingly feed them. It’s akin to wasps buzzing angrily around for awhile when their nest is disturbed, then settling down.
I understand the math. But again, this is making an assumption. Maybe some voters voted for "keeping the pit the same’ AND “Disable Discourse showing links to the Pit (if this is technically feasible)” since that does not actually change the Pit.
And "Insults to broad groups of people should not be allowed (by ethnicity, nationality, political orientation, etc.) they may have clicked that also, as they agree that for example- black people should not be insulted as a group, which again, could be considered not a change, depending on how you look at it.
Or “other” because they want the Pit changed, but none of the choices make them happy.
So, we don’t know what each voted voted for. We do know that the choice “No changes are necessary” =53% . Don’t make assumptions.
No assumptions are necessary to see that this is the overwhelming option, supported by 72% of voters, while any of the changes to the Pit have tiny, marginal support by comparison.
But that would be inaccurate then. If you vote that you want no changes and this change, you voted incorrectly.
That doesn’t mean nobody voted that way. It’s theoretically possible on a poll like this to pick every answer. So it’s just a badly-constructed poll, I’m sorry to say.
It would be incorrect if you phrase it the way you did, but not the way I did. “Want” is not the same as “OK with.” There is nothing inherently incorrect about being OK with no changes or small changes, but not big changes. So it depends on how the respondent interprets the poll. You are correct that it is not a well designed poll (no offense intended to the OP).
Based upon your assumptions, and one of these is that people voted that way you think they did. They may have wanted several of the smaller changes also.
Your assumptions aren’t unreasonable I give you that, but you are still making an assumption.
Count me as one that voted for no change, but also voted for changes that would be acceptable if my arm was twisted.
ETA: And I would note that the three most-voted options also all don’t call for much in the way of “changes”; just disabling links (not possible) and creating MORE pit threads rather than using omnibus threads for individual posters.
So … You are counting votes, rather than voters, and if someone voted for three options you are counting them three times?
It looks to me like 53% of voters prefer no change. Some of those people might also be happy with some of the minor (or impossible) changes, but they voted for no change, as well.
I mean, the real problem with the poll is that “who answered” is doubtless biased, probably towards “those who feel strongly”.
But of those who bothered to vote (which doesn’t include me) a clear majority want the pit to remain.
If you can say “no changes are necessary”, but at the same time “I would like these additional changes”, then even if the answers aren’t in conflict they’re also not equivalent. Regardless it’s hard to get anything meaningful out of this poll.
