Poll about Join-to-Post request

The poll about the name change indicates that most wish to keep the name.

What about the Join-to-post request? Note that this need not be permanent.

>1 LolaWalser: Vote: Would you like to open posting to everyone, at least temporarily?

Whoa--that's a loaded question and to my mind, an intellectually dishonest question. People cannot be denied from joining so everyone is allowed to post.

A better question would be:

>2 streamsong:

The title of the thread as well as my message provide context for the poll. As for your "intellectually dishonest" insult, perhaps I give more credit to people.

Speaking of "intellectually dishonest"

People cannot be denied from joining so everyone is allowed to post.

This is it.

>3 LolaWalser:

Given that there is no way to keep people from posting on any public board they want to on LT

what does a Yes vote mean on your poll?

>5 streamsong:

?!

It means lifting the requirement to join before one can post, of course.

If I'm not clear enough, by all means, say so. Don't insult me.

and how could one open it to people 'at least temporarily'?

>7 streamsong:

It's not complicated. When one makes a group, the group edit page includes options for forum participation, this is the default: (sorry about the formatting)

Forum
Include a group discussion forum? yes no
Who can post to the forum? everyone members

(See here: https://www.librarything.com/groups_edit.php)

If you tick "members" instead of "everyone", people must join the group before they can post.

So, it's a question of a single tick.

The creator of the group, or administrator, is the only one who can edit the group page (I think multiple admins are possible, but maybe it has to be specially arranged, not sure).

Anyway, this person can switch group settings back and forth in whatever time it takes them to click on a box.

LT staff can transfer admin powers to someone other than the creator (since she's been absent for years and no one seems to have any inkling she might return. Of course, if she ever does come back, she can be reinstated as the admin.)

Thanks to Lola for putting up the polls, but having two of them worded in opposite ways on the same topic strikes me as adding confusion and screws up the results you're going to get. Are we going to ignore the first poll? Are we going to add up the polls? What if some people vote in both polls and others vote in only one; that reduces the one-person-one-vote rule.

I'm going to set these questions on "ignore" for now, since the original question was merely whether we wanted a continuous thread (and that seems to be going forward, fine with me), and the rest of these questions have been contentious (they've certainly pissed me off in several times) and are siphoning energy off the actual book discussions.

9: Lola only put up one poll, Streamsong added the 2nd one.

>9 nohrt4me2: Thanks, agreed. All this contention has made the group seem like one of the pro-cons that I hate. Back to the original book discussions.

I apologise very much if the way I worded the poll is giving anyone trouble. I hope the context and the discussion help to understand what is meant.

Does everyone agree that both polls indicate the majority doesn't want the posting restriction lifted?

If yes, I suggest we consider the question closed.

>13 LolaWalser:

that's the gist i got reading through all the posts at once yesterday

I kind of wish the "undecided" option on all these polls could be a "don't care" option.

I voted but, like southernbooklady, I border more on "don't care" than "undecided".