Umbran said:
We've seen the pattern before: There's a long contentious thread on a subject ("Grognard good... grognard bad", in this case). People disagree in that thread. Someone then goes and makes a poll about it. Historically, it has not been uncommon for folks to take the poll to be, "Well, rather than argue, let's prove who is right about this!"
I recall a few complaints about this, even - folks suggesting that we disallow polls on recent contentious topics, on the basis that it is trying to find evidence and authority to "win" an argument.
Yeah. It seems that discussing a subject, even arguing, to get a better understanding of the subject is such a rare thing on the Internet compared to debating a subject to win that most people can't believe someone doesn't have a point to prove with a poll.
On the Internet, people either fully agree and a forum thread becomes a mutual respect society, or they disagree and a forum thread becomes a debate ground where one side must *win*. That's rather pathetic. Discussion for insight and understanding is such an enigma that people will spend the whole discussion trying to figure out someone's ulterior motive.
A poll rarely can "prove a point," but they can give evidence for a point. Mostly, a poll can and usually does add more information/data to a discussion. And good polls can help people come to a better understanding of the subject.
Polls let people put their opinion/thought/experience into a discussion without having to write a full post. Most members of ENWorld don't regularly participate in discussions -- they just read them. A poll brings in more people without adding more text.
For instance, with this poll, before the ballot stuffer(s) started screwing it up:
It doesn't prove any definition of "grognard," but it does show what most people think/feel when they see the word used. If someone calls himself a "grognard" and means "war gamer," he can see from this poll that around only 1/5th of the people around here will understand that meaning.
Now, for someone who wants to win an argument about the definition of the word, seeing this poll result is a slap in the face, a challenge, an insult. Such a person can't accept the idea that though the "war gamer" meaning may be perfectly correct, it is not the most commonly understood. If one wants to communicate and be understood, one needs to take the common understanding at least in mind.
I've made polls in this forum before that gave results contrary to what I expected (what I believed, myself). The "Was AD&D1 designed for balance?" and "Is this fair?" polls come to mind. The poll results do not necessarily resolve the questions asked, absolutely, but they do give points of data and new angles on the information than if the threads were just long arguments among the half-dozen posters who felt strongly enough to stay and argue for pages.
Really, look at some of the most contentious threads around here. They are just 2-6 people going on and on for many pages.
Can polls be presented in a biased or useless way? Sure.
"Do you still beat your wife?"
Yes or No
But if a poll is presented honestly and neutrally, they can be very useful for understanding a subject. And even if the presenter has a strong opinion on the subject, he/she gets only one vote.
Actually, a non-poll post presents more bias -- someone comes and posts their meaning of "grognard" and presents it as an authoritative definition.
But, personally, I should just give up on coming to the Internet for discussion to understand. It's not only a confusing concept to most 'netizens, it's anathema.
Bullgrit
