Re: Online 'hum'

I don't know that we are inherently bound by any particular slogan.  
However, the avoidance of voting still seems to me to be an extremely 
good idea.

Yours,

Joel

On 4/25/2026 12:34 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Are we bound by a 1992 slogan in perpetuity?
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 1:38 PM S Moonesamy <[email protected] 
> <mailto:sm%[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Martin, Stephen, Brian,
>     At 09:58 PM 23-03-2026, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>     >I don't know how difficult it would be to
>     >implement, but what about replacing the yes/no
>     >choice with a slider, say from 0 to 10 (or even
>     >continuous). Also, let people change their settings while the
>     poll is underway.
>     >
>     >This would get us closer to humming, where
>     >volume can be variable and adjusted to
>     >surroundings. It would still produce a number,
>     >rather than just an impression of strength (or weakness) of approval.
>
>     Brain mentioned anonymity.  The tool, or the
>     above suggestion, and the "hum" allows for some
>     form of anonymity.  The "hum" was described as
>     emphasizing that "we do not vote.  The statement
>     was based on a 1992 belief: "We reject: kings,
>     presidents and voting."  The question which comes
>     to my mind is whether the current practice would
>     be viewed by an external bystander as voting or not.
>
>     As Wes pointed out, there were moments of
>     conflict and moments of calm in the past.  A
>     newcomer might have found some of the conflicts a
>     bit strong.  Nowadays, the stakes are higher.
>
>     Regards,
>     S. Moonesamy
>