Why isn't each respondents poll choice indicated by their answer?

Question

When someone votes on a poll, it should indicate what they voted with their answer.

Answer 1

It's a good idea to Dan.

Answer 2

We will try to make the polls work as Sodahead polls here.

Answer 3

It's only been going three weeks and is improving all the time, all the suggestions are being listened to...it will be good ...be patient bozzy....we will have a great site again.

Comments

I am not being "impatient" John, but making a suggestion.

---

I never said you was, I meant it will happen...I know it's a suggestion, but being new it will gradually get to a place we all enjoy...

---

I'm not so sure about that.  From comments made, it appears that this is to resemble SH in many ways.  But I have also seen comments indicating disdain for political/controversial topics.  

What I enjoyed about SH was the variety, both of people and topics.  That is what I am looking for, not simply a "fun" site, though I realize that is precisely what many are looking for.

---

I rarely ventured into politics as when I did, everyone was trying to kill each other...as you get more and more active members there will be amongst them people who want to talk about politics. Don't forget soda had at least 400 active members and so you will get all the variety you are looking for....

---

Not without suggestions JD

If I come across something *an idea* that I think will improve this Site for us
then I'm not going to keep it to myself.

Even if you think I'm being Grumpy   lolz

---

Perhaps, but not necessarily.  Often people will not even look twice at a site if it primarily consists of the type of posts they are not interested in.  

I do think this is shaping up to be a good site.  Suggestions are not only acknowledged, but incorporated.  Notice is given when there will be down time.  And there isn't, at least right now, the fighting and trolling that is prevalent elsewhere.  That doesn't mean that more members will bring more variety though.

---

I'm certain more members will bring more variety as everyone is different and as far as trolling is concerned , we have at least one mod on duty at all times and it tells us who is online....on soda we waited days to get things done and on amirite...never...

---

The trolling and responses of the mods was never an issue for me, either on SH or Amirite, though I know it was for many.  

Everyone being different doesn't necessarily equate to variety if they are primarily one type of posts, though there may be variety within that type...as there is now.

---

You brought up trolling, it never bothered me on soda, but amirite got out of hand and spoiled the site...the more members means more opinions...which equates to variety ..

---

I brought it up because it was such a huge issue to so many, including you.  

There is a big difference between having many different opinions on what your favorite movie is, for example, and having differing opinions that spark interaction, conversation and debate.

---

Trolls have never been an issue for me, just the fact that I never knew who they were, on soda that was never a problem as they were easy to recognise....interaction, conversation and debate on these sites means arguments....and unless moderated properly they become nasty...

---

Whether they use their own account, sock accounts, are unregistered or anonymous...they are trolls.  And you indeed had an issue with them on Amirite.  

Interaction, conversation and debate may at times lead to arguments.  That doesn't mean they have to become nasty, though some do.  You, and others, feel the need for a playground teacher, some of us do not.  Moderators or not, people do get quite nasty with each other without technically breaking any rules.  So moderation doesn't eradicate nastiness, it simply stamps its approval on one flavor while silencing another.  I much prefer an honest F you from someone over a dishonest passive-aggressive attack where they don't own their nastiness.  But that's just me.

---

So you think I had an issue, all I did was defend myself when attacked, you said a lot of things to people that I considered nasty but you never said anything bad to those who were causing the most trouble, so that way you stayed out of trouble...the problem with the anonymous users, was that you could not block them and so they could do what they wanted ...so you are saying that someone making a vile comment to a user and someone saying how are you are equal..

---

Even when things died down you would come and stir the pot again, John.  I did indeed say things to others causing trouble on there.  Some had me blocked and I couldn't even see their comments, though.  And if you have a problem that I didn't run around policing adults online that is your problem.

Again, that wasn't an issue for me.  I didn't block on SH and I didn't block on Amirite.  


~~...so you are saying that someone making a vile comment to a user and someone saying how are you are equal..~~

Please John, quote where I said that.  You cannot, because I did not.  I simply stated that I greatly prefer honest and open nastiness over the passive-agressive type.  

Have I made nasty comments to people?  Sure.  Each one fully deserved, imho.  You made some pretty nasty comments yourself...not to mention an outright threat...but if it makes you feel self-righteous to judge me...carry on.

---

IT stamps it's approval on one flavour while silencing another.......that means they are equal ......anyway I came here to get away from arguing ...go back on am and see all the vile arguments and I'm not on there stirring it up....so you blaming me for the trouble is a bit ridiculous....let's leave it at that.....

---

The two flavors being passive-aggressive nastiness and open and forthright nastiness.  They are, in actuality, equal, but are not treated equally.  I neither said nor consider, "Hi, how are you?" to be passive-agressive nastiness.  That was a creation in your mind.  

I never blamed you for all the problems on Amirite, John.  I said you had an issue with them...which you did.  I also said you continued to stir the pot...which you did.  As to who started them, as I was never able to see all the exchanges, I have no clue.  Nor do I care.

---

Some people on there, only saw what suited them, every attack came at me, I never went looking for them...but like you tell me I'm stirring it ....one said to me " happy cancer " and except my friends, no one made a comment about it and most people must have seen it, even you....

---

No John, I never saw that.  As I am blocked by some of your foes and one of your friends on there...I cannot see much of what goes on.  Truth be told, though, I simply avoided most of those posts, so I never saw any of the exchanges on those posts that I never went on.  What I did see was usually what spilled over onto other posts, and attacks were made by all involved...those whose posts I could see at least.

Answer 4

Agreed

Answer 5

Sounds like a job for DAN the MAN!