Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
I didn't mind people voting. What I minded was people voting for the winner and then not participating.
|
This is one of the problems we're addressing with the new rule.
Quote:
|
So how would I go about voting now when there is a chance one or more of the books could win that I know I won't read or reread?
|
Please,
for the last time: If you vote, you've committed to read the selection. If that's too risky, don't vote. Easy! You're still welcome to join the discussion if the winner is to your taste, if that's your litmus test for participation.
One reason we're trying to keep prices down and make more allowance for library availability is the hope that people will be more willing to try something they'd prefer not to read. At least read enough of it to join the discussion with a cogent reason they didn't like it, something more than just, "It was rubbish."
Another problem we're addressing with the new rule is that it should limit negativity about the selections. Since the presumption is that everyone will read the eventual choice, it encourages politeness about all the nominations. Once the discussion starts, of course, you're free to dislike a book as much as you want.
The reality is that sometimes people will vote and then be unable to participate, whether it's life issues or because a book isn't available to them. So long as someone doesn't make it obvious that they don't like the choice, who's to know? Everyone gets a free pass to miss a discussion for life reasons; however, credibility is built up over time (and can be restored after missing a discussion) and if voting without participating is a pattern for a member, it will be addressed.
Basic courtesy covers this situation; remember the Golden Rule. Don't overthink it or draw attention to it and you'll be fine, but rudeness and flagrant violations won't be tolerated.
But, Jon, this really does have to be the end of this discussion. We've been over and over this point already.