Sam and Jack Ship poll on Stargate Daniel Friendly Site

[Bucky]

^^ Agreed, but as you imply, we already knew that a bunch of people like the S/J ship and a bunch don't. However, given the known bias of the site holding the poll against the S/J ship, it is interesting that the vote was so close despite the discrepancies.

Bucky

[AgentX]

I don't know if the site's bias has that great an impact on the results. Granted people who go to that site will be more likely to vote against the relationship, but in this day of hyperlinking, all it takes is for one person to post a link to that site on a Pro relationship message board or whathaveya and the bias is relatively muted. I see it all the time with other divided fandoms.

the poll was really nothing but a colossal waste of time and it proves nothing

I could have told you that before the poll started, and I believe many here had the same opinion

[Jace021903]

^^ Agreed, but as you imply, we already knew that a bunch of people like the S/J ship and a bunch don't. However, given the known bias of the site holding the poll against the S/J ship, it is interesting that the vote was so close despite the discrepancies.

Bucky

I think that the fact that the results were so close is interesting period. It show me that it was advertised to "shippy" sites as well as "not so shippy" sites.

Even if you toss all the disputed votes to the shipper side, the results are still close.

(This next part is to everyone)
Whatever your opinion on her methods, I think the owner of the site was trying to be fair.

What bothers me and the reason I posted in the first place is the implication from a few people that the results were somehow fixed.

There are polls on the internet all the time. I don't understand why some are taking it so seriously if it doesn't mean anything and it is a waste of time.

Anyway, those are my final thoughts on the subject.

Night all,

[jex_piperUK]

I'm shocked...who'da thought more than half the fandom hated the ship. Thank god...i thought about 70% or something was brainwashed.

[keshou]

(This next part is to everyone)
Whatever your opinion on her methods, I think the owner of the site was trying to be fair.

What bothers me and the reason I posted in the first place is the implication from a few people that the results were somehow fixed.

Yes I believe the owner of the site was trying to be fair.

However, just about anyone in fandom who ran this poll, especially when you have the power to eliminate votes because of proxy's or multiple IP's, or whatever, would be suspect. Anyone who has an opinion on the matter is not going to be perceived by most on the other side as "unbiased". It's like giving George Bush or John Kerry's campaign manager the right to monitor the counting of the ballots in the upcoming election. They might be the fairest person since King Solomon, yet still be perceived as biased because they've got a horse in the race.

There are polls on the internet all the time. I don't understand why some are taking it so seriously if it doesn't mean anything and it is a waste of time.

Polls are fun. That's all. We all knew fandom was split on this issue and whether it's 60/40 or 30/70 or 50/50 doesn't change the strong feelings on the matter. The only thing that helps is actual dialogue on the issue and a willingness to compromise and well....lighten up.

The poll was kind of presented in a manner that made it sound more serious than I think might have been intended. Suz's original announcement of the poll:
Anyway, it's about time this was cleared up once and for all. I've set up a poll where you can vote either for or against. IP's will be logged and so don't bother trying to vote more than once, you won't be able to. Other safeguards are in place. Let's make this the real deal. Let's find out once and for all where the fandom stands.

This doesn't sound like a "let's all have fun with this" type of poll, it sounds like it's a "let's settle this once and for all". I think Susanna's intentions were good but it just kind of served to stir the pot again. Of course it doesn't take much to stir this particular pot.

Anyway, those are my final thoughts on the subject.

And mine as well.

[brihana25]

However, given the known bias of the site holding the poll against the S/J ship, it is interesting that the vote was so close despite the discrepancies.

This is the only part of my post that's in response to you, Bucky... I don't want you to think I'm going off on you specifically. It's just that I've got a few things to say, and I've got a question to ask you specifically.

What exactly is the known bias of SDF, other than liking Daniel? Jack's on that site too. So is Sam. So is Teal'c.

My site is the same way. I personally prefer Daniel, but his being my favorite character doesn't mean that I somehow hate the other three. I happen to adore all three of them. Just because I happen to adore Daniel a little bit more, does that mean that everything on my site should be perceived as having a "known bias"?

This is a sincere and honest question, because I truly don't get it.

Now...

I've got a couple of other things to say.

What follows is a rant of epic proportion, so here is the disclaimer in advance.
* I am not directing these comments at any specifc person.
* I am not slamming anyone - individual or group.
* I am using the word "you" in the generic universal tense.
* I am not intending to offend anyone - but if you do get offended by what I say, then I probably am talking about you without knowing it.

On to the post:

1. I agree that it's interesting that it was close.
2. If you think the invalid votes were something Suz made up to justify "rigging" the results, I'd suggest you go browse around a particular thread here on GW and see how many people were *bragging* about having cheated.
3. The invalid votes were *not* all from the J/Sp side. There were a few dozen votes removed on the second or third day as well, and IIRC, something around 1/3 of those were anti-J/S votes.

People cheated, on both sides, and they got busted. They bragged about doing it, and they got smacked. If it is a fact (which none of us knows for sure, so this is all conjecture) that there were more J/S votes eliminated than anti-J/S, then that would prove nothing other than the possibility that more J/S people submitted invalid votes than anti-J/S people did.

Am I saying that all J/S votes should be invalid? No.

Am I saying that all J/S voters are lousy, rotten, stinking, cheating liars? NO - so don't even go there with me.

I am saying, flat out, that people cheated. Convince me that those votes should stand. Seriously. Convince me that any poll that has had its results intentionally skewed one way or the other could even come to close to being judged as valid in any way.

Those of you that say the fact that the invalid votes were removed nullifies the results - would you have prefered that they be left? Would you have prefered to see results that were clearly and without a doubt skewed?

Would you rather have a close approximation of reality (which Suz worked her butt off to make this be) or a result that shows nothing except which side had more people with nothing better to do than vote a dozen times?

They cheated - both sides - they got caught, and they didn't get rewarded for it.

Why is this a problem?

People cheating is in no way, shape, or form Suz's fault. The fact that she removed the invalid votes is in no way indicative of a bias on her part.

What it proves is that there are people out there - on both sides - who are so dedicated to proving that they are "right" that they will go to any lengths to prove it. This was never about the truth to some people. This was about "how many ways can we find around this so we can win?" <- and *that* is the problem.

Had no one cheated, no votes would have been removed. Plain and simple. Placing the blame for other people's misbehavior on the person that caught them doing it is irresponsible.

If you want to gripe about the invalid votes that got removed, then gripe at the people who put them there.

If you think that the votes should have been allowed to stay despite their invalidity, then you have no interest in fairness.

If you think any of this is the fault of anyone other than the people who did it, then you have no concept of accountability.

[Brandie]

<snip>

What exactly is the known bias of SDF, other than liking Daniel? Jack's on that site too. So is Sam. So is Teal'c.

My site is the same way. I personally prefer Daniel, but his being my favorite character doesn't mean that I somehow hate the other three. I happen to adore all three of them. Just because I happen to adore Daniel a little bit more, does that mean that everything on my site should be perceived as having a "known bias"?

<snip>

I do believe the "known bias" on SDF is that they are extremely anti-S/J. Very extreme. Like a good portion of the people on that site have threatened letters and to quit watching the show if any S/J ship is acted upon.

[Buc252]

1. I agree that it's interesting that it was close.
2. If you think the invalid votes were something Suz made up to justify "rigging" the results, I'd suggest you go browse around a particular thread here on GW and see how many people were *bragging* about having cheated.
3. The invalid votes were *not* all from the J/Sp side. There were a few dozen votes removed on the second or third day as well, and IIRC, something around 1/3 of those were anti-J/S votes.

People cheated, on both sides, and they got busted. They bragged about doing it, and they got smacked. If it is a fact (which none of us knows for sure, so this is all conjecture) that there were more J/S votes eliminated than anti-J/S, then that would prove nothing other than the possibility that more J/S people submitted invalid votes than anti-J/S people did.

Am I saying that all J/S votes should be invalid? No.

Am I saying that all J/S voters are lousy, rotten, stinking, cheating liars? NO - so don't even go there with me.

I am saying, flat out, that people cheated. Convince me that those votes should stand. Seriously. Convince me that any poll that has had its results intentionally skewed one way or the other could even come to close to being judged as valid in any way.

Those of you that say the fact that the invalid votes were removed nullifies the results - would you have prefered that they be left? Would you have prefered to see results that were clearly and without a doubt skewed?

Would you rather have a close approximation of reality (which Suz worked her butt off to make this be) or a result that shows nothing except which side had more people with nothing better to do than vote a dozen times?

They cheated - both sides - they got caught, and they didn't get rewarded for it.

Why is this a problem?

People cheating is in no way, shape, or form Suz's fault. The fact that she removed the invalid votes is in no way indicative of a bias on her part.

What it proves is that there are people out there - on both sides - who are so dedicated to proving that they are "right" that they will go to any lengths to prove it. This was never about the truth to some people. This was about "how many ways can we find around this so we can win?" <- and *that* is the problem.

Had no one cheated, no votes would have been removed. Plain and simple. Placing the blame for other people's misbehavior on the person that caught them doing it is irresponsible.

If you want to gripe about the invalid votes that got removed, then gripe at the people who put them there.

If you think that the votes should have been allowed to stay despite their invalidity, then you have no interest in fairness.

If you think any of this is the fault of anyone other than the people who did it, then you have no concept of accountability.

My only dispute is that it's very likely that some of the votes that were discounted *weren't* truly invalid. Two or more college students sitting next to each other, both voting, got invalidated because the ISP's were close. Six different people voting at the same internet cafe PC got invalidated because it came from the same ISP. People whose online service juggles ISP's and *happened* to be on using one that somebody else who'd already voted on got their votes invalidated. Some people - AOL members in particular - often couldn't get on to vote at all.

This is not the fault of any of those fans who voted. They didn't brag they cheated, they just tried to make their vote count. Those who cheated deserve to have their votes discounted. What if all but one of the people who vote in the presidential election in Florida were eliminated because their addresses were close to another person's who'd already voted.

Your post doesn't address these voters' situation, and it seems like there were a lot of them. Personally, I'd like to see the results with all the votes, including the ones declared invalid by human judgment, unless it's very obviously a cheat. (By obvious, I mean 30 votes from one ISP.) It wouldn't change anything in the grander scheme of things, but it would be interesting. But my understanding is that these figures will not be released by the pollster.

[Skydiver]

I could have told you that before the poll started, and I believe many here had the same opinion

yep, which is why i didn't bother voting. In the end, it wasn't gonna matter so why waste my time

[Skydiver]

I think that the fact that the results were so close is interesting period. It show me that it was advertised to "shippy" sites as well as "not so shippy" sites.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the only advertisement on 'shippy' sites was when folks like morjana forwarded the announcements.

(This next part is to everyone)
Whatever your opinion on her methods, I think the owner of the site was trying to be fair.

I'm sure she was


the crux of the 'issue' does still come down to one little thing, anything and everything like this will perpetually be seen as a competition and a 'we must win' level of commitment. There's not much acceptance in other views but a 'i gotta prove that *I* am right'

Whatever will folks do with their time when STargate ends and there is no longer things like this to argue about????

[Madeleine]

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the only advertisement on 'shippy' sites was when folks like morjana forwarded the announcements.

Suzanna turned up here in the S/J thread and the anti-S/J thread to post the details of the poll. I don't know about other sites.

the crux of the 'issue' does still come down to one little thing, anything and everything like this will perpetually be seen as a competition and a 'we must win' level of commitment. There's not much acceptance in other views but a 'i gotta prove that *I* am right'

Yup. Which is why it's a jolly nice thing that the result was virtually a draw

[Jace021903]

I do believe the "known bias" on SDF is that they are extremely anti-S/J. Very extreme. Like a good portion of the people on that site have threatened letters and to quit watching the show if any S/J ship is acted upon.

Are you sure you are thinking of the right site?

I thought Stargate Daniel Friendly (SDF) was the place with transcripts and pictures of the show.

[Tok'Ra Hostess]

**Apparently a poll was held a while ago, by TPTB, to let them know how many people were ....

Is it possible that the PTB simply took a look at various sites/conventions as well as the fan mail and based their decision on opinions expressed in these?

If that's the case, then perhaps they weren't lying, but PW simply used the wrong term. Perhaps census would have been a better choice of word than poll.

Pete Woeste said it in the Grace commentary:


PW: Showdown time. An interesting thing was attempted here. The shippers and many others, were interested in this relationship that's developed over the years, between Carter and O'Neill. They've sort of developed into two different camps. There's two main camps and they're saying, 'We'd like to see that relationship develop romantically.' The other camp says, 'No, it's a relationship that should remain professional and without a professional relationship, you can't have a show like Stargate.So it was decided to basically put this out to public opinion on the net and to see how people would like this particular scene to resolve itself. Do you want to see them kiss or not? What we actually did is we shot two different versions of this scene, giving the outcome of that poll.But what results here, is a little different from what was anticipated. Instead of having two different versions, we ended up with this singular version. I think it's addressed very interestingly. I'm not gonna give it away right now, cos it's about to happen, but it was a very much talked about event.