This was the first time I've ever reached outside of LJ for votes, and I did it because a few weeks ago I was reminded by several people that I'm not competing in "my ideal vision of how the game should be." I'm competing in the game the way it is.
I've always kept LJ separate from the rest of my world (mostly my work world), so it was a weird thing, and I truly hate campaigning for myself, and I honestly don't know if I'll do it again. I made a filter, but I still had weird feelings about it, and, whatever.
As for the "tell them to read" thing, I've always felt like people should read if they're going to vote. In fact, I've always felt that people should read ALL THE ENTRIES if they're going to vote, but see that aforementioned, "the game that is" thing.
When you're reading your LJ friends list and a post goes up fifteen minutes before a poll deadline on a week where there are seventy-some-odd entries, and the message is, "My friend is in this competition, please go vote for her." It's pretty clear there's no expectation that folks are going to read. And that's not new, and I've never seen those folks get chastised for it.
Hell, I've even seen posts that literally say, "Please go vote for me, you don't even have to read anything, just click the box." And I've seen people in comments say, "I have three accounts, so that's three votes from me!" But it's an imperfect system. You can't police everyone, etc.
I encourage people to read. Once I've done that, if I'm reminding people to vote, I don't always say something about reading because I've already encouraged them to read.
But, honestly, there have been Green Room conversations in which people who are competing at the time say things like, "If I don't have time to read, I just vote for..."
So, unless there's a pop quiz covering content required to vote (this would be the literacy test to accompany the poll tax suggested a few days ago), there's really no way to know who is reading and who isn't.
no subject
I've always kept LJ separate from the rest of my world (mostly my work world), so it was a weird thing, and I truly hate campaigning for myself, and I honestly don't know if I'll do it again. I made a filter, but I still had weird feelings about it, and, whatever.
As for the "tell them to read" thing, I've always felt like people should read if they're going to vote. In fact, I've always felt that people should read ALL THE ENTRIES if they're going to vote, but see that aforementioned, "the game that is" thing.
When you're reading your LJ friends list and a post goes up fifteen minutes before a poll deadline on a week where there are seventy-some-odd entries, and the message is, "My friend is in this competition, please go vote for her." It's pretty clear there's no expectation that folks are going to read. And that's not new, and I've never seen those folks get chastised for it.
Hell, I've even seen posts that literally say, "Please go vote for me, you don't even have to read anything, just click the box." And I've seen people in comments say, "I have three accounts, so that's three votes from me!" But it's an imperfect system. You can't police everyone, etc.
I encourage people to read. Once I've done that, if I'm reminding people to vote, I don't always say something about reading because I've already encouraged them to read.
But, honestly, there have been Green Room conversations in which people who are competing at the time say things like, "If I don't have time to read, I just vote for..."
So, unless there's a pop quiz covering content required to vote (this would be the literacy test to accompany the poll tax suggested a few days ago), there's really no way to know who is reading and who isn't.