The irony is not lost on the Fictional Commission. In fact, we think the observations of irony ought to go a little further, if you please.
Suppose we take as a sample the accounts that voted on the Fictional Commission's report. Suppose, further, that those who have never published a diary entry, have never had a story posted, and have contributed fewer than five comments to the site in total, might be considered "non-contributing," and perhaps in some way "suspect."
Of the 333 non-abstaining voters on the Fictional Commission's report, 35*, or approximately 11%, meet the stated criteria.
13 of 131 voted "FP," representing about 10% of such voters. 7 of 86 voted "section," comprising 8% of that vote. Finally, 15 of 122 voted against, representing 12% of those who cast their vote with user "Tezcatlipoca."
Despite the fact that a larger proportion of possibly "suspect" accounts cast their vote against the Fictional Commission's report, we do not feel that such accounts need be censured. We are, frankly, a little less paranoid than that.
We realize that with a large site, there will be a few "legitimate" users who register an account solely for the purpose of voting on stories, just as there will be a few who register only to comment, only to post diaries, or (heaven forbid!) only to submit carefully researched reports to the queue.
We do have an additional reason for posting under this account, which should be quite obvious. We are, in fact, comprised of many K5 "regular" users, and a story can not be published under multiple accounts.
The Fictional Commission is comprised of different people with different opinions. Some are more critcal of the CMF than others, some are more patient, some have longer memories, some have fancier trousers, and so forth. We have each established our various K5 "personalities," an we have agreed to maintain the integrity of those personalities, as well as that of the Fictional Commission, via a regretable but unavoidable policy of strict anonymity. The Fictional Commission seeks results through a pragmatic, depoliticized approach, and this approach would in all honesty be most "out of character" for many of its member "personalities."
As to your insinuation that those who voted "1" on your comment were not "trusted," and thus "irony-impaired," Tezcatlipoca, we would point to the fact that as of this writing, nobody has given your precious editorial comment a rating greater than "1." Think about that for a moment, please?
When you have finished your ruminations, we would appreciate it if you stopped to consider the fact that if a proof of Certified Bona Fides were required before submitting an article to K5, the front page today would be as blank as it was on the day it was born.**
* For those who wish to confirm this figure independently, we invite you to examine the following accounts:
Adam Procter, asking, bigpimpdaddy, Dark Helmet, decrocher, FoxCat, Gen Seizure, hunin667, Jawyr, kinenveu, kurodink, Levesque, little pests mother, lokilocke, Martinofka, midas2000, missing link, mmq, Mr Spot, My Momma Sewed My New Blue Jeans, noproblema, OdinX, onallama, philwise, phony, Professor Collins, qhill, sbisson, scotek, Sekhara, ShadoWolf, strabo, StuartHurley, thedexman, themenace
** Those who were there will remember that the site launched without a "Diary" section.
[ Parent ]