GTP Cool Wall - Poll Options Vote

[Tornado]

As promised, I've put the options of whether or not the Cool Wall will proceed as forth with the Public Poll Option checkmark selected in the future in the hands of the members of GTP. The debates for both sides of the argument are in this thread. You have until the 1st of January to make your decision. Thank you for your help.

 

[Lucas]

Voted "no". That way, there will be no "needless arguments" because no one will call out the exact person who voted different than them, and thus everyone can vote freely without being "afraid" of being brought into an argument they didn't look for in the first place.

 

[homeforsummer]

everyone can vote freely without being "afraid" of being brought into an argument they didn't look for in the first place.

Everyone is at liberty to keep their opinions to themselves even if they're called out on it.

Equally, they are at liberty, and indeed encouraged, to voice their opinions too. This is after all a discussion forum and if people are voting without expressing their opinion in the thread then it's a little disappointing for those of us who'd like to hear why someone has voted a certain way.

You can guess which way I voted: public poll.

If I were being bold I'd suppose that people wishing to vote anonymously would be those unable to adequately express their opinion should someone call them out on it...

 

[niky]

What's the fun of a forum discussion without an argument?

But besides that, people rarely get called out on their votes, anyway... unless they're the only person to vote subzero or seriously uncool for a particular car...

 

[JCE]

Voted "no". That way, there will be no "needless arguments" because no one will call out the exact person who voted different than them, and thus everyone can vote freely without being "afraid" of being brought into an argument they didn't look for in the first place.

^ This. What he said.

 

[Worst_Driver]

Voted "no". That way, there will be no "needless arguments" because no one will call out the exact person who voted different than them, and thus everyone can vote freely without being "afraid" of being brought into an argument they didn't look for in the first place.

He's right.👍

 

[Joey D]

What's the fun of a forum discussion without an argument?

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. To just vote would make things boring, or reading a bunch of statements that just states "X car is cool!".

As for me, I voted for public polls.

 

[Boffin]

Public. I like a good discussion.

 

[mafia_boy]

I said no for the reason that there are several people that will vote on the car, but can't articulate the exact reasons or give a good enough explanation on why they consider it to be a cool or uncool car or if they don't know enough details of the car in question to give such reasons. But there should be a 'gentlemen's agreement' that if you vote sub-zero or seriously uncool that you should explain why you have voted so strongly either way for it.

 

[LSX]

All for pubic poll. Hopefully will get the people that vote Sub-Zero on car that are clearly beyond lame to explain why they feel the way they do.

 

[senamic]

Clarkson names and shames people, and they stick up for themselves. Anyone who goes against the grain has every right to, but they should be named, so that others can ask for an explanation.

 

[Lucas]

If I were being bold I'd suppose that people wishing to vote anonymously would be those unable to adequately express their opinion should someone call them out on it...

Exactly. Personally, I will start voting based on looks and what I know. Because looks is someone that everyone can vote based on. History of the car? Some find those kind of things a part of a car being cool or not. But at the end of the day, not everybody knows everything about every car, so people that know nothing of cars are limited to vote on what they see.

But besides that, people rarely get called out on their votes, anyway...

What...?

unless they're the only person to vote subzero or seriously uncool for a particular car...

...oh. Well, that's were the problem lies.

I said no for the reason that there are several people that will vote on the car, but can't articulate the exact reasons or give a good enough explanation on why they consider it to be a cool or uncool car or if they don't know enough details of the car in question to give such reasons.

The comment to end all comments. 👍

 

[homeforsummer]

Exactly. Personally, I will start voting based on looks and what I know. Because looks is someone that everyone can vote based on. History of the car? Some find those kind of things a part of a car being cool or not. But at the end of the day, not everybody knows everything about every car, so people that know nothing of cars are limited to vote on what they see.

I agree with this. Plenty of the cars that have been polled so far I've been in the dark about, especially some of the more obscure American cars, but even so I'll always explain my vote in the thread.

I just don't see much point voting if you aren't going to at least give a half-assed explanation of why you vote that way, because that's the whole point of an internet forum.

I'd also agree with Niky that people get called out fairly infrequently based solely on their poll choice. They're more likely to get called out if they say something ridiculous in the thread, such as the big discussion about performance in the Ford SportKa poll a while back, and why it's harsh to judge a car on outright performance rather than relative performance (if you must use objective reasoning in the vote anyway, given how subjective "cool" and "uncool" is...). There are other examples too of course, but that thread was a good example of someone getting called out for using reasoning that was completely irrelevant to the subject of cool and uncool.

I said no for the reason that there are several people that will vote on the car, but can't articulate the exact reasons or give a good enough explanation on why they consider it to be a cool or uncool car or if they don't know enough details of the car in question to give such reasons.

The comment to end all comments. 👍

No, it really isn't. If you have that little knowledge about a particular cool and can make no other judgement on cool or uncool than one based on styling or heresay, then you're better off not voting at all. Would you vote for a politician you knew absolutely nothing about, including which political party they stood for? Of course you wouldn't, and although these threads are a bit of fun, you're rather missing the point if you're voting cool or uncool on something you know nothing about.

 

[mafia_boy]

No, it really isn't. If you have that little knowledge about a particular cool and can make no other judgement on cool or uncool than one based on styling or heresay, then you're better off not voting at all. Would you vote for a politician you knew absolutely nothing about, including which political party they stood for? Of course you wouldn't, and although these threads are a bit of fun, you're rather missing the point if you're voting cool or uncool on something you know nothing about.

And you're missing the point that in the TG cool wall, Clarkson goes up to people many times and asks what do they think? They say cool because it looks funky or something trivial, not because they know that it has a 5.0L V8 that can do 0-60 in 4.8sec, gets 12mpg and weighs 3800lbs. They might know stuff all about the car itself but that's not the point about it. Does it look cool, yes it might....does it go fast or hard, no it might not.

It's the same with politicians, too....some people vote for someone just because they like the way they dress, or because he has a nice demeanour, and some people will vote for person B because person A dresses like an absolute chav, they don't give two rats about the policies that either person presents!

 

[Jim Prower]

So, tell me, when does this behaivior of "Calling out" become "Public Lynching?" Where does one draw the line? and, furthermore, how does this solve anything?

@ the above: It's sad, but true...I'm sure some people voted for Obama merely because he wasn't a Republican, not even knowing what the Democrats stand for!

 

[niky]

...oh. Well, that's were the problem lies.

Actually... I'm struggling to think of a single time someone got called out by name for voting against the grain when they've not posted in the thread... sometimes, someone will make the blanket comment: "Why are people voting seriously uncool?" or "So, who voted subzero, then?"... but nobody actually goes into a poll with sixty votes, singles out one name amongst the dozens who've voted for one choice and asks them why they voted that way.

-

The only public lynching that occurs is when someone actually posts an opinion in the thread which others feel has poor foundations or some other such flaws. Even when I've voted against the grain, for example, and have posted my opinion... I almost never get called out.

 

[Jim Prower]

I've seen a few people call out by name, and with this "public option" now on the table, I'm betting it'll be more common, aggressive, and prone to abuse.

I may vote opposite of everyone just to prove that point...

 

[mafia_boy]

I'll join that bandwagon Jim just so you don't get 'lynched' on your own.

 

[JacoJa]

The cool wall shouldn’t be taken too seriously. The public poll option all adds to the fun.
I enjoy seeing each users personal opinion, especially the people (like me) who don’t post too often.

 

[Jim Prower]

*ugh...* I wasn't being serious about trolling.

I'm fine with public so long as people quit persecuting others for thinking differently. Honestly, I think people ARE taking this whole thing too seriously. I honestly don't care what quality your opinion is, and I DEFINITELY don't think you should be, or must be, banned from voting because a certain, small circle of people think you must have a fully developed opinion to be worth anything in life. That's stupid.

Furthermore...and this is important...People spam-vote because it pisses you uptight types off. If you'd just let it go, they'd get bored and leave things alone.

 

[homeforsummer]

And you're missing the point that in the TG cool wall, Clarkson goes up to people many times and asks what do they think? They say cool because it looks funky or something trivial, not because they know that it has a 5.0L V8 that can do 0-60 in 4.8sec, gets 12mpg and weighs 3800lbs. They might know stuff all about the car itself but that's not the point about it. Does it look cool, yes it might....does it go fast or hard, no it might not.

And so if you have these opinions about something you should express them in the thread rather than just voting and sodding off. If you're able to say that "it looks good" then say it. It's when people decide to vote for no other reason than to go against the grain, or try to use objectivity when it's irrelevant that the problems start appearing.

That said, some people nominate some pretty obscure stuff on the cool wall. Everything on the Top Gear wall is brand new at the time it's put up there, so our wall doesn't have many similarities with that one. Not to mention that ours is majority vote and TG's is a dictatorship. Clarkson essentially doesn't care about the opinions of the people he asks unless he agrees with them. That isn't how ours works.

Ours is on a discussion forum. There should be discussion.

But then, unlike perhaps some other people, I like to think I can contribute positively to threads rather than just lurk around them.

It's the same with politicians, too....some people vote for someone just because they like the way they dress, or because he has a nice demeanour, and some people will vote for person B because person A dresses like an absolute chav, they don't give two rats about the policies that either person presents!

You wouldn't know if someone has a nice demeanour from looking at a photo, which is essentially the comparison I was drawing.

With all due respect, people who vote based on the way a politician dresses without considering their policies probably shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place...

 

[Jim Prower]

With all due respect, people who vote based on the way a politician dresses without considering their policies probably shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place...

No, they should. They have a right. Sure, it's daft, but restricting someone's right to vote is...well, when it's based on skin color, it's Racist, when it's gender, it's sexist...Do this, and we go back 50 years in civil rights...

I understand "seeing someone's opinions," I don't understand persecuting them.

 

[mafia_boy]

And so if you have these opinions about something you should express them in the thread rather than just voting and sodding off. If you're able to say that "it looks good" then say it. It's when people decide to vote for no other reason than to go against the grain, or try to use objectivity when it's irrelevant that the problems start appearing.

Agree with you on that point.

You wouldn't know if someone has a nice demeanour from looking at a photo, which is essentially the comparison I was drawing.

And you wouldn't know if the car is a great car just from a photo either, but it still allows people to decide just that way.

With all due respect, people who vote based on the way a politician dresses without considering their policies probably shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place...

No, they should. They have a right. Sure, it's daft, but restricting someone's right to vote is...well, when it's based on skin color, it's Racist, when it's gender, it's sexist...Do this, and we go back 50 years in civil rights...

Exactly my point. What are we, communist China that have to conform to everything and justify everything we say?

I understand "seeing someone's opinions," I don't understand persecuting them.

Totally agree with this too Jim. 👍

 

[homeforsummer]

No, they should. They have a right. Sure, it's daft, but restricting someone's right to vote is...well, when it's based on skin color, it's Racist, when it's gender, it's sexist...Do this, and we go back 50 years in civil rights...

There isn't a correlation between skin colour, race, sexism etc and simply being disallowed from voting because you're a moron. That's why I like my idea, though admittedly, it'd be hard to come to a definitive conclusion on what constitutes a moron. Not to mention that it would immediately remove the right for politicians to vote...

Furthermore...and this is important...People spam-vote because it pisses you uptight types off. If you'd just let it go, they'd get bored and leave things alone.

Didn't notice this bit before.

For the record, I only voted for open polls in this poll because I like to see how everyone voted. I've no vested interest in it, and the only time I've ever called anyone out for their vote is when they've already posted their opinion in the thread and think they're talking gibberish. It would literally be impossible for someone to spam vote just to piss me off. There could be a fifth option of "homeforsummer sucks" in the poll and you could all vote for it, and it would still be a fart in a hurricane to me...

I essentially want open polls because I'm nosy and like to see how people voted.

Agree with you on that point.

Given that it's my main point then, I don't see us having too many disagreements on it...

And you wouldn't know if the car is a great car just from a photo either, but it still allows people to decide just that way.

But it would still be missing the point of voting it cool or uncool. You have to have at least some knowledge of a car to vote it cool or uncool. If this weren't the case, then "sleepers" would all be uncool as on the outside, they look pretty normal and boring. You have to know it's a sleeper to know it's cool.

I believe you can't vote a car uncool or cool based solely on looks. Looks can be a factor, they can't be the sole reason. There's also little correlation between looks and cool - some good looking cars are "uncool" on our wall, and some pretty ugly ones are "cool".

Exactly my point. What are we, communist China that have to conform to everything and justify everything we say?

Communism paranoia. I like it. You forgot to take your pinch of salt with my post.

As I've said many, many times though, this is a discussion forum so discussion is encouraged. If people didn't want to talk about stuff then why did they join a forum in the first place? If you have an opinion, express it. I can see you personally can't have a problem with this as you're responding to my posts. It's ironic that some fairly vocal people are happy to voice their opinion yet seem unable to do so in a topic which could actually be interesting, like the polls.

 

[JacoJa]

*ugh...* I wasn't being serious about trolling.

I was lightly reading through this thread before I created my previous post. My comment was not refering to any specific posts or users.

 

[Jim Prower]

Nah...that was more aimed at the comment above yours.

 

[JacoJa]

My mistake. 👍

 

[Tornado]

No, it really isn't. If you have that little knowledge about a particular cool and can make no other judgement on cool or uncool than one based on styling or heresay, then you're better off not voting at all. Would you vote for a politician you knew absolutely nothing about, including which political party they stood for?

I agree to a point (voting simply for voting's sake is pretty daft), but I think that styling or heresay would be perfectly acceptable reasons for voting cool or uncool. And there is the crux.

I believe you can't vote a car uncool or cool based solely on looks. Looks can be a factor, they can't be the sole reason. There's also little correlation between looks and cool - some good looking cars are "uncool" on our wall, and some pretty ugly ones are "cool".

If there is little correlation between styling and coolness, why does it matter if a minority of people do vote based on styling alone?

There could be a fifth option of "homeforsummer sucks" in the poll

💡

 

[homeforsummer]

If there is little correlation between styling and coolness, why does it matter if a minority of people do vote based on styling alone?

Because it isn't necessarily a small minority. It could be enough to swing the vote. Alternatively, it could make for pretty boring reading if nobody decided to post a response because they'd only voted on styling.

💡

Go on, I dare you...

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The cool wall shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Yes

which is why I don't agree with this:

No, it really isn't. If you have that little knowledge about a particular cool and can make no other judgement on cool or uncool than one based on styling or heresay, then you're better off not voting at all. Would you vote for a politician you knew absolutely nothing about, including which political party they stood for? Of course you wouldn't, and although these threads are a bit of fun, you're rather missing the point if you're voting cool or uncool on something you know nothing about.

The cool wall should not be compared to voting for a politician. If somebody thinks the Mercedes Gullwing is uncool because it's ugly, let them. You can judge coolness without knowing much about the car.