Re-Opened: The P&N Improvement Association -- Please Read & Contribute

[Bowfinger]

Three questions re. a possible P&N sub-forum with more formal rules:

1. If the goal is heavier moderation, and perhaps even moderating for content rather than only more superficial behaviors, why not just apply the new standards to the current P&N? Adding a forum creates more moderator work, so what's the additional benefit in return?

2. Perk, are sufficient moderator resources available to support anything like this? We've discussed in previous threads the desire for content-focused moderation, e.g., intellectual honesty, logical fallacies, etc., yet the implication was it wasn't realistic given the limited time available from the volunteer moderator pool. Has that changed? Are we only talking about enforcing civility rules?

3. If we're only talking about enforcing a no-insult rule, see again #1 above. Also, we tried it once and I think most people agree it didn't go well. What do we do differently this time to make it effective?

Please understand I'm not trying to be negative. I have a professional curse; I automatically look ahead for potential problems and obstacles to try to address them proactively. I'd really like to see a P&N with a healthy signal to noise ratio, and I'd like to help make it that way.

 

[Thebobo]

I like the way P&N is now, it has a certain charm. It can get a little dirty but that’s what makes it fun. There are hundreds of other political forums out there for calm and rational discussion, but only one P&N. For me the entertainment value is priceless.

Thanks

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Not Perk, but as a primary proponent of the idea, my answers to the questions I can answer...

1. If the goal is heavier moderation, and perhaps even moderating for content rather than only more superficial behaviors, why not just apply the new standards to the current P&N? Adding a forum creates more moderator work, so what's the additional benefit in return?

The main advantages are:

A. Since it's an experiment, any impacts are combined to a "lab", if you will.
B. Because of that, some people who would oppose wholesale changes to P&N would be willing to accept a separate laboratory of this sort.
C. Some folks like P&N the way it is now.

3. If we're only talking about enforcing a no-insult rule, see again #1 above. Also, we tried it once and I think most people agree it didn't go well. What do we do differently this time to make it effective?

I think there's pretty broad consensus that the solution to the mess that is P&N right now needs to be holistic, and not just pick on insults. It needs to address the behaviors that lead to insults as well.

 

[boomerang]

For me this is not the issue because I don't believe that facts have a bias. I think that were the bias comes in is in what we accept as facts when they are not facts at all. This is why the attempt to explain why you believe what you believe exposes the assumptions we make for peer review. If a person is actually interested in finding out what facts are really true he will welcome this, but if the intent is to be right regardless of fact, then one will learn nothing but others will be able to determine what they are dealing with. Where the emphasis is on discovery and not being correct, a friendlier attitude may prevail, especially if no put downs are allowed to emotionally side track reason. I welcome any thoughts and disagreements you may have on this.

Nations are at war around the world. Tyrants, dictators and despots are murdering the residents of the very nations they lead. People are murdering each other in the streets to steal their phone, their shoes or simply because they've been disrespected.

You desire a society that is not attainable at this point in human evolution. Wishing it so won't make it happen. Moderation on a forum won't either. Learn to accept that others don't think the way you do, put the quest for assimilation on the back burner and watch how much happier you become. Allow me to not think as you do. Allow me and watch the antagonism subside.

We are a divided nation. Not as much as we could be and not as much as I feel we will be when the shit hits the fan. Nothing will be settled here. This is not the arena in which the battle will be fought. We've developed very little beyond the club swinging ape from which humans sprang. Deal with it. I don't have to think like you do. Deal with it. If you want to take on the quest of trying to convince me that the way you think is the righteous path, knock yourself out. Don't be surprised if I tune you out. If I replied to every poster here that in my opinion had their head up their ass I would be one very busy person. Learn to live and let live. Let me decide that which I wish to believe in. Learn to turn the other cheek.

To everyone...

This thread was asking solely for input on a revised "no insults" rule and it has gotten way, way off track. The thread started out civilly, degraded rather quickly and was then put back on track. It is now again very far off track.

As far as the insults, to quote a Bob Newhart character, STOP IT. Just STOP IT. If you don't or you can't, expect to get the hammer dropped on you. For the mods, if it's too much to deal with, shut down the P&N forum. We all need to accept our responsibilities as participants or masters. If it's too hard, STOP IT!

 

[boomerang]

I like the way P&N is now, it has a certain charm. It can get a little dirty but that’s what makes it fun. There are hundreds of other political forums out there for calm and rational discussion, but only one P&N. For me the entertainment value is priceless.

Thanks

Exactly right! I've said numerous times that there is a need for a forum where people can blow off a little steam. We've got it.

Those with sensitive natures want it molded to fit their PC vision. Life on earth is a dirty dog eat dog existance. I'm sorry they weren't raised to deal with reality and I'm really not interested in changing to make them happy.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I like the way P&N is now, it has a certain charm. It can get a little dirty but that’s what makes it fun. There are hundreds of other political forums out there for calm and rational discussion, but only one P&N. For me the entertainment value is priceless.

Funny, my experience has been just the opposite. Every political forum of any size that I find online is a cesspool of flaming and irrationality. The only exceptions are ones where either the leaders enforce a particular political viewpoint, or the members self-select with the same result.

There's no shortage of places where you can go to find stuff like this. I can rattle off a half dozen URLs right now.

The reason P&N has the potential to be more is specifically because AT is a technical forum, not a political one. In general, technical people tend to be more rational and intelligent. And because people are drawn here for technology, there's a more natural assortment of political views.

This place has real potential and it would be a criminal waste to allow it to continue to just be a mud pit like so many others. I would posit that if people find "entertainment" in people abusing each other, that they can find it easily elsewhere. We can do better.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nations are at war around the world. Tyrants, dictators and despots are murdering the residents of the very nations they lead. People are murdering each other in the streets to steal their phone, their shoes or simply because they've been disrespected.

Doesn't mean we can't discuss those issues among ourselves with a modicum of respect.

Learn to accept that others don't think the way you do, put the quest for assimilation on the back burner and watch how much happier you become. Allow me to not think as you do. Allow me and watch the antagonism subside.

I personally welcome opposing viewpoints. In fact, I thrive on them. I want to learn what others think, I want to challenge their views and have them challenge mine.

For the last three weeks, I've been active on a forum nearly entirely filled with liberals, arguing about gun control. In most of the threads it has literally been just me against everyone else. We have yet to agree on much, but we've mostly been able to keep the discussion civil. (The forum is private so I can't show examples.)

This thread was asking solely for input on a revised "no insults" rule and it has gotten way, way off track. The thread started out civilly, degraded rather quickly and was then put back on track. It is now again very far off track.

Actually, it was intended to be broader, discussing "rules of engagement" in general. And that's important.

Perk has asked for no personal attacks. So I won't make any, and I won't even level any accusations. I'll simply ask you: can you honestly say that you have not posted threads here in the recent past for the specific purpose of eliciting negative responses? You said that "we all need to accept our responsibilities as participants or masters." Doesn't that extend beyond just not using insults?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Three questions re. a possible P&N sub-forum with more formal rules:

1. If the goal is heavier moderation, and perhaps even moderating for content rather than only more superficial behaviors, why not just apply the new standards to the current P&N? Adding a forum creates more moderator work, so what's the additional benefit in return?

2. Perk, are sufficient moderator resources available to support anything like this? We've discussed in previous threads the desire for content-focused moderation, e.g., intellectual honesty, logical fallacies, etc., yet the implication was it wasn't realistic given the limited time available from the volunteer moderator pool. Has that changed? Are we only talking about enforcing civility rules?

3. If we're only talking about enforcing a no-insult rule, see again #1 above. Also, we tried it once and I think most people agree it didn't go well. What do we do differently this time to make it effective?

Please understand I'm not trying to be negative. I have a professional curse; I automatically look ahead for potential problems and obstacles to try to address them proactively. I'd really like to see a P&N with a healthy signal to noise ratio, and I'd like to help make it that way.

Your pragmatic concerns, I think, will be solved in a change of ethos; such that moderation becomes less burdensome over time. This is, in essence, a philosophical debate and we have to start with an assumption: do people have free will?

If people have free will, then the methods we use to understand each other must be idiosyncratic; generalizable experimentation is heavily limited as otherwise we could easily predict human behavior through experimentation.

If our methods are idiosyncratic examples, then our knowledge about people is perpetually limited. This means, in a social context, that we can't know, for sure, if what we have observed reflects the truth.

If our knowledge about the truth, in every instance, limited, we can't make any True (ineffable) statements about social Reality. That is, everything we know something about socially may-well not be the 'thing' we think we are talking about.

Working back up, the philosophy of how people react on a forum looks like this:
We know people have biological responses to positivity and negativity, but otherwise we can't fully define anything as a 'fact' or as 'true'; so all we have left is accepting that some people think some things are true and others think that other things are true.

Because what social reality is for some folks is different between one person and another, then there is no way to argue over facts unless they are contextualized within a world view that pre-formats our experiences into what we will call 'knowledge' but which is, actually, just a quick-and-dirty way of creating shortcuts build upon assumptions.

Since everything we know is built upon assumptions that take experiences and pre-format them into the knowledge we expect to find; then the way some people go about knowing something to be 'true' or 'factual' (socially) is going to differ from the way other people do it, come up with contrary conclusions, but neither of these people will be wrong.

The only rational conclusion, given that this is the state of human social knowledge, is to accept others as they are; appreciate one another as reasonable individuals that have come to our world-views for a reason, and try to uncover those underlying assumptions that pre-format our experiences.

None of this denies that there is Truth: if you step in front of a buss, its either you or the buss. But this does mean that in politics, we are much more often dealing with make-believe concepts like "democracy" and "freedom"; which map onto true things like "can I say what I want" and "can I smoke weed" to differing degrees for everyone.


This leaves human free will being in the ability to change our assumptions, reformat how we take on experiences, and appreciate what other's perspectives mean to us.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I like the idea of a strictly moderated discussion sub-forum, but could we at least get the trash taken out of regular P&N before letting it go full on "Lord of the Flies"?

 

[LunarRay]

How on Earth or any other place can there be an informative discussion on the topic Politics or Religion or any of the branches there from?

Have you read the topics that appear as threads? They are geared to 'one up' the other side to start with. Folks are firmly entrenched in their belief and no fact or theory will be acceptable to them as others try to assuage or usually firmly and with venom disabuse that position. It is confrontational and what usage of the the English language can result in a peaceful discussion? "Only an Idiot would think that way" or "Your link is biased".... No shi*! Do you expect someone to post a link or any reference that is supportive of the other side?
Even Science is subject to the same approach. I maintain the universe can be brought to existence from nothing... No time, no space, no nothing... absolutely nothing... and the basis is that Nothing is unstable and something will always result... Quantum thinking stuff... But there are folks who'd argue God did it... or you can't have something from nothing cuz it must be something... and the insanity begins. The Earth is 6000 yrs old with fossils gazillions of years old popping up all over... God again and there it is.

Now... how long can there be a discussion when folks won't open their minds to possibilities beyond their religion or their political side's agenda on a topic... Not long and you wish to have a forum where nice talk is maintained and one where it is a free for all... that is insane, in my opinion. Both will devolve to the same level. They have to or the nice place will have one or two posts and "let's take it to the free for all"...

Moderation is subjective... the same words in different context changes the thrust of the comment. Bias of the moderator often affects the playground as well...

My experience in Moderator stuff stems from three arenas.. In business where my function was running the show ideas and positions belong to the holder of such. How they are presented was controlled by me. Business is about bringing together various thoughts with a single objective. A forum is about as far away from that as it can be... In the class room I am the dictator... I don't try to teach what to think but, rather, how to think. That too is no where near a forum venue. Visit the Randy forum and you'll see rather sharp folks castigate anyone who'd venture in with alternative views on anything relevant... It don't matter how reasonable the proffer... If it is not in keeping with their majority objective it is cut down and sliced up into so much poo.
Once I moderated a Philosophy of Religion forum and it was a headache beyond belief. Like I need to argue over what I interpret to be an unnecessary vile comment used to argue a point... more insanity.

So... If there is to be a P&N forum it ought to be 'Free for all' with no moderation other than what would be termed beyond the beyonds... threats and the like. Either that or it should be dictated by the head honcho and as I said before: Comply or good bye.

 

[LunarRay]

For me this is not the issue because I don't believe that facts have a bias. I think that were the bias comes in is in what we accept as facts when they are not facts at all. This is why the attempt to explain why you believe what you believe exposes the assumptions we make for peer review. If a person is actually interested in finding out what facts are really true he will welcome this, but if the intent is to be right regardless of fact, then one will learn nothing but others will be able to determine what they are dealing with. Where the emphasis is on discovery and not being correct, a friendlier attitude may prevail, especially if no put downs are allowed to emotionally side track reason. I welcome any thoughts and disagreements you may have on this.

I think you'll find the Oxford dictionary has two main definitions of the word 'Theory'. One deals with hypothesis and one in which falsification's has not occurred nor substantial experimental efforts have moved it into the second definition of 'Theory'... One where there are so many supportive occurrences, like Newton's gravity, that it is assumed to be factual... but, with infinity as the criteria (at least for the next few trillion years when the universe ought to cease to exist) we can't use the term fact. I may have appeared five minutes ago with all the information lodged in my brain that lends me to believe I've existed for all these years... I can't even be certain I exist... I think I do but it may not be factual.
We take for granted lots of stuff that only have a probability or confidence level such that we rely on the observation as fact. In other words, you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution by selection nor does science seek to prove there is no god... it only seeks to find truth about nature and when confronted by religion it is termed atheistic. Religion, however, is regarded as fact!.... That which has no proof trumps everything and that is absurd... But accepted and used as if it were fact.

If a forum sought to increase knowledge it would be a university otherwise it is a place of frustration bound to engender what often occurs here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Lunar: It can be done quite readily. And if we do the subforum -- for which there seems to be pretty universal agreement -- then it's the best of both worlds.

 

[alzan]

I think you'll find the Oxford dictionary has two main definitions of the word 'Theory'. One deals with hypothesis and one in which falsification's has not occurred nor substantial experimental efforts have moved it into the second definition of 'Theory'... One where there are so many supportive occurrences, like Newton's gravity, that it is assumed to be factual... but, with infinity as the criteria (at least for the next few trillion years when the universe ought to cease to exist) we can't use the term fact. I may have appeared five minutes ago with all the information lodged in my brain that lends me to believe I've existed for all these years... I can't even be certain I exist... I think I do but it may not be factual.
We take for granted lots of stuff that only have a probability or confidence level such that we rely on the observation as fact. In other words, you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution by selection nor does science seek to prove there is no god... it only seeks to find truth about nature and when confronted by religion it is termed atheistic. Religion, however, is regarded as fact!.... That which has no proof trumps everything and that is absurd... But accepted and used as if it were fact.

If a forum sought to increase knowledge it would be a university otherwise it is a place of frustration bound to engender what often occurs here.

How tragic it would be if our colleges/universities operated as do forums; Majors would be FlameBaiting and Trolling with Minors in ThreadCrapping, lecture halls would require thrice daily cleaning if ThreadCrapping were a Major.

But even in P&N there is knowledge to be found if one is willing to put forth the effort and slog through the detritus from anonymous internet prattle.

 

[LunarRay]

Lunar: It can be done quite readily. And if we do the subforum -- for which there seems to be pretty universal agreement -- then it's the best of both worlds.

I don't know what tomorrow holds and considering your position can't hurt, then Why not. We can or Perky can always try the next option what ever that might be.
My bit above is simply a prognostication as well as an observation (reverse that)
I actually don't mind the insults or what ever directed to me. Assuming there are some... hehehehe I tend not to be confrontational in the obvious sense.

 

[LunarRay]

How tragic it would be if our colleges/universities operated as do forums; Majors would be FlameBaiting and Trolling with Minors in ThreadCrapping, lecture halls would require thrice daily cleaning if ThreadCrapping were a Major.

But even in P&N there is knowledge to be found if one is willing to put forth the effort and slog through the detritus from anonymous internet prattle.

Hehehe right!

I suppose there is knowledge here and there being available and usually from the superb links on stuff scientific.

However, knowledge ceases to exist when absurd comments occur... like for instance: In a forum, maybe this one... not sure..., I said that GPS devices must consider general and special relativity in order to account for the time factors down to nanoseconds of the speeds and locations of the elements involved.... to which I was bombarded with... it is all the Devil's work and similar proof of my alleged atheistic attitude...
Or... Homosexuality is not an abomination among nature and we are part of nature.... You can guess what followed from the section of forum members who live in a vacuum. (as I see it) So, I guess we'll see what happens. Hope it works.

 

[JEDIYoda]

How on Earth or any other place can there be an informative discussion on the topic Politics or Religion or any of the branches there from?

Have you read the topics that appear as threads? They are geared to 'one up' the other side to start with. Folks are firmly entrenched in their belief and no fact or theory will be acceptable to them as others try to assuage or usually firmly and with venom disabuse that position. It is confrontational and what usage of the the English language can result in a peaceful discussion? "Only an Idiot would think that way" or "Your link is biased".... No shi*! Do you expect someone to post a link or any reference that is supportive of the other side?

I do not think any of us are nieve enough to actually believe that we are going to change somebody`s mind,,,,

Truly people are entrenched in their beliefs. With that said all you have to do is look on the Internet and you will find somebody questioning somebody and both parties using very different facts to support what they believe.

Its a matter of how do we respond to the other person?

Think about that....

 

[LunarRay]

I do not think any of us are nieve enough to actually believe that we are going to change somebody`s mind,,,,

Truly people are entrenched in their beliefs. With that said all you have to do is look on the Internet and you will find somebody questioning somebody and both parties using very different facts to support what they believe.

Its a matter of how do we respond to the other person?

Think about that....

OK, well... I thought about that.

I don't really quibble about using different 'facts' to argue a point if they are some how related but guess using the same 'facts' and arguing they mean different things brings about the 'how we respond to the other person' thingi in the sense it becomes frustrating. It seems to me that there are underlying bases which permit these 'fact' interpretations to occur and ferreting out what they may be gives rise to my greater point. We soon loose sight of the original point in favor of the right or wrong view of the underlier. It is in that endeavor where frustration breeds an environment of hostility.
I read lots of posts and find it interesting but don't post often even though I've lots of time to do so and possibly a retort to offer... no real point to be made as I see it. Well... assuming my point might be a point.

Using Climate change as an example... We observe the arctic ice is melting. I mean it really really is melting. So... what does this imply? Some factor or factors is at work here. So... folks adopt the argument they are comfortable with be it political or religious or even based on scientific theory. While I figure the horse sense of the unbiased holds sway over all other input. And, discount the position of the biased. And from that the unsolvable argument begins... Nothing is gained because folks hold on to the underlying biased bases over any other open minded thinking. The debate then becomes a personal attack as the only thing left to say. In my thinking that calls for a 'free for all' type forum because it will always get there on any topic.

 

[JEDIYoda]

OK, well... I thought about that.

I don't really quibble about using different 'facts' to argue a point if they are some how related but guess using the same 'facts' and arguing they mean different things brings about the 'how we respond to the other person' thingi in the sense it becomes frustrating. It seems to me that there are underlying bases which permit these 'fact' interpretations to occur and ferreting out what they may be gives rise to my greater point. We soon loose sight of the original point in favor of the right or wrong view of the underlier. It is in that endeavor where frustration breeds an environment of hostility.
I read lots of posts and find it interesting but don't post often even though I've lots of time to do so and possibly a retort to offer... no real point to be made as I see it. Well... assuming my point might be a point.

Using Climate change as an example... We observe the arctic ice is melting. I mean it really really is melting. So... what does this imply? Some factor or factors is at work here. So... folks adopt the argument they are comfortable with be it political or religious or even based on scientific theory. While I figure the horse sense of the unbiased holds sway over all other input. And, discount the position of the biased. And from that the unsolvable argument begins... Nothing is gained because folks hold on to the underlying biased bases over any other open minded thinking. The debate then becomes a personal attack as the only thing left to say. In my thinking that calls for a 'free for all' type forum because it will always get there on any topic.

You really did not think about it.....

If you read what I said at all.....

Here is what you think about -- It went right over your head --

Its a matter of how do we respond to the other person?

Think about that....

Well how do we respond to other?? With hatred? With abuse?
With vile? making fun of.......

How about with respect.......not making fun of their family........understanding that there truly are more than just one set of facts......

 

[LunarRay]

You really did not think about it.....

If you read what I said at all.....

Here is what you think about -- It went right over your head --

Its a matter of how do we respond to the other person?

Think about that....

Well how do we respond to other?? With hatred? With abuse?
With vile? making fun of.......

How about with respect.......not making fun of their family........understanding that there truly are more than just one set of facts......

In my quote which quoted your paragraphs I mentioned the "how we respond to the other person"... I identified pursuant to one of your para the hostile environment and how it might be created and concluded with personal attacks as the only comment left to the frustrated.

I personally don't get frustrated but I can read frustration in other writings. So... if you ask how I respond, I suppose I'd say I have no need to go beyond the gist of the post I'm addressing and tend not if at all to deal with anything one might conclude are insults or other of a negative manner directed toward me.

 

[Perknose]

Exactly right! I've said numerous times that there is a need for a forum where people can blow off a little steam. We've got it.

Those with sensitive natures want it molded to fit their PC vision. Life on earth is a dirty dog eat dog existance. I'm sorry they weren't raised to deal with reality and I'm really not interested in changing to make them happy.

This above is why we're liking the idea of TWO P&N forums more and more. Each serves a different constituency, and each is desired by that constituency.

 

[Perknose]

Adding a forum creates more moderator work, so what's the additional benefit in return?

2. Perk, are sufficient moderator resources available to support anything like this? We've discussed in previous threads the desire for content-focused moderation, e.g., intellectual honesty, logical fallacies, etc., yet the implication was it wasn't realistic given the limited time available from the volunteer moderator pool. Has that changed? Are we only talking about enforcing civility rules?

The thinking is that two forums would actually lighten the load on our present staff. The background to this is that there exist past and postential mods who would take to modding the new forum like a duck to water, while we'd leave the present forum to the denizens that love that rough back and forth, only responding to the most egregious overreaches, which members would report themselves.

The new forum would be, as CharlesK, said, temp and experimental at first, but would be a "holistic", clean-sheet attempt at total sanity and comity -- something along the lines of the stated rules that, I believe Ars (or some other forum) has -- no unsupported BS as well as no personal attacks, etc.

 

[Michael]

I think that a sub-forum is a waste of time. If you don't like the main forum now, moderate it.

I have been posting here for years and have directly insulted (or mocked) posters that later have been revealed to be mods. Nothing happened to me.

I have also seen zero sign of anyone really having their opinion changed in all these years. The occasional admission of error, yes, but no real shift in views (or posting ability for some I have been mocking for years (a decade in some cases, I think).

This forum was meant to get polital and religious discussions out of OT. It succeeded. If the owner of the site and the admins think it is too toxic, then moderate the place. No "sub-forum" will work, in my opinion.

Michael

 

[5150Joker]

P&N does need major oversight. Far too much trolling and vitriol is allowed here. Freedom of speech is fine to an extent but when you give trolls and racists an open forum like this, they take advantage and ruin any potential meaningful discourse.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The new forum would be, as CharlesK, said, temp and experimental at first, but would be a "holistic", clean-sheet attempt at total sanity and comity -- something along the lines of the stated rules that, I believe Ars (or some other forum) has -- no unsupported BS as well as no personal attacks, etc.

:thumbsup:

I have also seen zero sign of anyone really having their opinion changed in all these years. The occasional admission of error, yes, but no real shift in views (or posting ability for some I have been mocking for years (a decade in some cases, I think).

Well, I have had my views changed over the years as a result of political discussions. Perhaps not here, but that may be a result of the poor SNR in P&N.

This forum was meant to get polital and religious discussions out of OT. It succeeded. If the owner of the site and the admins think it is too toxic, then moderate the place. No "sub-forum" will work, in my opinion.

You seem to be implying that enforcing strict moderation on the main forum would be easier and/or better than doing so in a subforum. I'm having a hard time coming up with any rationale for why that would be the case, nor any advantages of doing so.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The thinking is that two forums would actually lighten the load on our present staff. The background to this is that there exist past and postential mods who would take to modding the new forum like a duck to water, while we'd leave the present forum to the denizens that love that rough back and forth, only responding to the most egregious overreaches, which members would report themselves.

The new forum would be, as CharlesK, said, temp and experimental at first, but would be a "holistic", clean-sheet attempt at total sanity and comity -- something along the lines of the stated rules that, I believe Ars (or some other forum) has -- no unsupported BS as well as no personal attacks, etc.

awesome ,when can we vote for it?

maybe you can situate the pole such that it says "if a high enough percentage of the voters are interested, we'll try this"