| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Why not do it this way: We set up one thread (easily filtered for |
| 5 |
>> those who wish to do so) with the Subject "Questions for |
| 6 |
>> Candidates." Anybody who cares can pose a question with context if |
| 7 |
>> you must (questions preferred over speeches). Then let candidates |
| 8 |
>> just edit their manifestos addressing whatever questions they care |
| 9 |
>> to answer. If somebody has a neurotic need to keep their personal |
| 10 |
>> version of the score by all means post a table somewhere and |
| 11 |
>> announce it once, but we don't need a running commentary - this |
| 12 |
>> isn't politico. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This won't work, because not all candidates will have a manifesto. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Then they can do a one-time post with answers to whatever questions |
| 18 |
they want, or ignore them altogether. Same thing as a manifesto, |
| 19 |
really (just a statement of what they're about). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The essence is separate the questions and the answers so that |
| 22 |
candidates can just review a list of questions, and voters can just |
| 23 |
read at most one concise statement per candidate, rather than a |
| 24 |
back-and-forth thread. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Seems to be doing fine so-far... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives