[conlang_learners] Conlang Learners Vote list

[Padraic Brown]

--- On Sun, 8/30/09, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's likely -- the longer we wait for a response, the
> less likely it
> is we're going to get one.  But with the way
> instant-runoff voting
> works, I don't think it actually matters whether Foolang
> whose creator
> is unwilling to let us use her conlang but hasn't responded
> and said
> so yet is eliminated before or after the voting.  The
> end result
> should be essentially the same whether it's eliminated
> beforehand
> (because we haven't heard from her) and nobody lists it on
> their
> ballot, or if it's eliminated later (when she finally
> responds saying
> no, we can't use it, or the vote-counters try a second time
> to contact
> her and fail) and we go to the runner-up (which would have
> been the
> first-place winner if nobody had listed Foolang on their
> ballot
> because it was pre-disqualified).

Sure -- if said language isn't chosen, there's no problem! The problem I'm trying to avoid is where everyone likes such-and-such a language, chooses it, and then when we try to contact the conlanger, we run into some problem. Removing a potential problem before everyone votes means a smoother choice of remaining languages, plus no disappointment on the part of the electorate who won't be expecting that favourite language to appear on the ballot!

I'm sure you're right that the likelihood of this happening is low -- like I said, I'm just trying to eliminate as many potential problems as possible.

> But the result *might* be different if it's a case of a
> conlanger who
> just doesn't check email very often or reply to it
> promptly; in that
> case, letting people vote for the conlang if they want to
> while we
> wait another week or so to hear back from the creator, and
> maybe
> prodding them a second time in the event their conlang is
> chosen by
> the vote, could result in a different winner, and one
> that's more
> congenial to a larger number of voters.

You know the old bromide: were ifs and buts candy and nuts. I guess then the question becomes at what point do we stop trying to consider alternative possibilities, no matter how unlikely?

I've said my piece! If it's decided that the whole list is on the ballot, then that's the way it shall be!

> > That way, everyone involved -- learners as well as
> creators, knows in advance what is involved and is ready to
> get started without the hassle of not really knowing if the
> chosen language's creator is up to the task of facilitating
> everyone else's learning it!
> 
> If some voters are only willing to vote for conlangs whose
> creators
> have already given permission, or only for those whose
> creators sound
> positively enthusiastic about helping us learn their
> conlang, they're
> free to only list conlangs of that sort on their
> ballot. 

Of course. At this late date, we've still seen virtually no chat regarding who likes what. I think it's still anyone's game. Though I suspect that one of the languages with loads of documentation and lessons will have a leg up.

> The apparent availability of conlangs' creators is certainly going to
> influence my
> own rankings, though probably some very interesting
> conlangs whose
> availability is not yet certain will rank higher than some
> less
> interesting ones whose creator is definitely available.

Indeed

Padraic

> Jim Henry