5 ms·

Imagine a group of programmers unable to tell the difference between "violates the rules" and "hurts my political feelings"... yikes.

Spivak 6y ago
And then imagine the group of programmers arguing with them trying rule-lawyer "keep the polls civil and don't sport inflammatory clothing or accessories." It's not a good look when the best you can make is something isn't technically forbidden. Like it doesn't make you clever trying to argue that your "cry more snowflake" shirt isn't political -- you're just an asshole.
- thedream 6y ago
  Doing a thing that's "not a good look (according to Spivak)" != a violation of the stated rules Being perceived as "an asshole (according to Spivak)" != a violation of the stated rules Thanks for demonstrating my point so clearly ;]
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    No, but if you're working at the polls, you shouldn't be trying to push that line absolutely as hard as you can, and then arguing that what you're doing doesn't technically cross it. That isn't the point. The point is, in your official capacity, you're supposed to be neutral. Not "not biased enough to be against the rules". Neutral.
    - thedream 6y ago
      The scenario you described didn't happen. What did happen was that a poll worker made up their own version of the election guidelines and injected their personal biases related to "specific ballot measures" and the "police organization" into their conduct. Does that sound neutral?
  - raisedbyninjas 6y ago
    What's clear from this thread is that there are a hundred ways to clearly support a candidate that don't break the rules. If you agree with the intention behind the rules don't try to undermine them. If you don't support the ban on electioneering, then be open about it and try to change the policy.
    - thedream 6y ago
      "The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination. It cannot be quantified. That's the point of having written rules. Expecting that poll workers will read and adhere to The Rules as stated isn't some wild fantasy. It's literally what they signed up to do. It's foundational to the idea of an election having any legitimacy at all. It does not require taking a position on "the ban on electioneering", just a position against poll worker vigilantism (virtue-lantism?).
      - barumi 6y ago
        > "The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination. No, it's pretty straight-forward. There's no healthy democracy that believes that a blatantly partial and biased individual counting the votes generates confidence in the elections being fair and democratic. The whole idea that you can violate such a fundamental principle in such a blatant way is something that goes totally against basic democratic principles.
        thedream 6y ago
        > No, it's pretty straight-forward. Great! If it's so straight-forward, can you please quantify the intention behind the document entitled "Guide for Election Board Officials in Philadelphia County"[1] for me? ... I'll wait. In the meantime, I'd love to hear more about how impossible it is for "blatantly partial and biased" poll workers to effect the perceived fairness of an election. Would you have confidence in an election where each poll worker made up their own version of the rules? [1] https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primary_2020_Election_Board_Training_Guide.pdf https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primar...
benibela 6y ago
They just need to check whether the flag is on the whitelist or the blacklist
- weed_lol 6y ago
  Careful, with that kind of comment people might think you're a Trump supporter
- layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
  Yikes. It’s called allowlist and denylist...
weed_lol 6y ago
Lol have you read the Contributor Covenant or postmeritocracy.org ?
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Good lord. At least the signatories have made themselves easy to identify.
- thedream 6y ago
  not a masochist

Spivak 6y ago

And then imagine the group of programmers arguing with them trying rule-lawyer "keep the polls civil and don't sport inflammatory clothing or accessories." It's not a good look when the best you can make is something isn't technically forbidden. Like it doesn't make you clever trying to argue that your "cry more snowflake" shirt isn't political -- you're just an asshole.

thedream 6y ago
Doing a thing that's "not a good look (according to Spivak)" != a violation of the stated rules Being perceived as "an asshole (according to Spivak)" != a violation of the stated rules Thanks for demonstrating my point so clearly ;]
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  No, but if you're working at the polls, you shouldn't be trying to push that line absolutely as hard as you can, and then arguing that what you're doing doesn't technically cross it. That isn't the point. The point is, in your official capacity, you're supposed to be neutral. Not "not biased enough to be against the rules". Neutral.
  - thedream 6y ago
    The scenario you described didn't happen. What did happen was that a poll worker made up their own version of the election guidelines and injected their personal biases related to "specific ballot measures" and the "police organization" into their conduct. Does that sound neutral?
- raisedbyninjas 6y ago
  What's clear from this thread is that there are a hundred ways to clearly support a candidate that don't break the rules. If you agree with the intention behind the rules don't try to undermine them. If you don't support the ban on electioneering, then be open about it and try to change the policy.
  - thedream 6y ago
    "The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination. It cannot be quantified. That's the point of having written rules. Expecting that poll workers will read and adhere to The Rules as stated isn't some wild fantasy. It's literally what they signed up to do. It's foundational to the idea of an election having any legitimacy at all. It does not require taking a position on "the ban on electioneering", just a position against poll worker vigilantism (virtue-lantism?).
    - barumi 6y ago
      > "The intention behind the rules" is a thing that lives in your imagination. No, it's pretty straight-forward. There's no healthy democracy that believes that a blatantly partial and biased individual counting the votes generates confidence in the elections being fair and democratic. The whole idea that you can violate such a fundamental principle in such a blatant way is something that goes totally against basic democratic principles.
      - thedream 6y ago
        > No, it's pretty straight-forward. Great! If it's so straight-forward, can you please quantify the intention behind the document entitled "Guide for Election Board Officials in Philadelphia County"[1] for me? ... I'll wait. In the meantime, I'd love to hear more about how impossible it is for "blatantly partial and biased" poll workers to effect the perceived fairness of an election. Would you have confidence in an election where each poll worker made up their own version of the rules? [1] https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primary_2020_Election_Board_Training_Guide.pdf https://files7.philadelphiavotes.com/election-workers/Primar...

benibela 6y ago

They just need to check whether the flag is on the whitelist or the blacklist

weed_lol 6y ago
Careful, with that kind of comment people might think you're a Trump supporter
layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
Yikes. It’s called allowlist and denylist...

weed_lol 6y ago

Lol have you read the Contributor Covenant or postmeritocracy.org ?

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Good lord. At least the signatories have made themselves easy to identify.
thedream 6y ago
not a masochist