Of course Tiki Wiki already exists. It is a CMS with it’s own Pre-Dogfood Server.
TT
I found the responses in this thread very encouraging. Far more than I first thought was the case.
But writing a description of the aim is harder than I imagined.
Basically it is the “other thing”. That is not so easy to describe.
TT
Right. “Cafe” will work as well as “Lounge” for the aim. And other terms too. I’m trying to describe the “scope” of it in a way a newbie will understand. Not so easy!
TT
Small footnote. Well, yeah, Hangouts as tag added to the final category if it seems that could be a valid use for it.
Best, TT
Therefore it is true.
I did create a wiki Request to suggest a NAME for a new "off topic" / "fun topic" category where everyone can add new titles.
Discussion should happen here in this thread. I’ll move all posts in the other thread to this one if they fit.
Thankyou! I do think it got wider interest (more than I ever imagined!). I’m quite content you did that. I think it is both good and interesting! I don’t consider it “mine” in any way.
TT
Well that’s a good thing. Nothing’s your’s on the interwebz, not even you 
I’m tracking you, okay?
Or I will.
TT, what you’re doing doesn’t scale. If 25 people added comments like yours the OP would be unreadable.
From @TiddlyTweeter
- GigglyWiki – erm, nice, but misses the category could be non-humour too?, TT
-
GiddilyWiki– looks like a typo?, TT - Hangout – better as a sub-tag of the category, TT
- Le Café – going European is okay but “Le Café” is mirrored in Italy as “La taverna”, “Cafe” would do it? TT
-
Segue– not international enough, TT - The Flying Tiddler – erm, cats don’t fly? TT
- Tiki Lounge – Tiki Wiki exists. Let’s not go there. TT
2 Likes
Likely right. I’ll shut up.
TT
Le Café – going European is okay but “Le Café” is mirrored in Italy as “La taverna”, “Cafe” would do it? TT
I actually do like “La taverna” … I did add it. …
I did add Café and Le Café … We will see, how many votes the different version get. …
I also wanted to add “Culture Club”, but that would definitely be something different. 
– OT –
@CodaCoder … thx for “locking the topic” … I did “lock the post” and then couldn’t edit anymore. I used the wrong setting 
1 Like
Hello all,
I don’t know but I kind of like the ring to this one: “The Tiddler Cafe”
Sounds like a nice relaxing afternoon having a chat with friends.
Whatayasay?
All the best,
Julio
[Moving this from the voting options thread… and must apparently make the text less similar to the mistaken post so I need to type this very sentence.]
For voting when there are this many options, may I suggest that instead of casting one vote per person, each one has to vote on, say, three alternatives or some such. Otherwise it is likely that the winning alternative really got very few votes and it is a winner that most don’t like.
(If you’re really serious about it, maybe consider Ranked Voting. I can think of no better method to really find the best option, or at least to find the least-disliked option.)
I did plan, that the first poll-1 allows for 3 votes per person.
1 Like
I don’t know, what’s possible at the moment. So I’ll create 2 the possible polls here in this post, so we can test it.
Having “weights” isn’t an option for the built in system. … So here we have 2 votes, but we are allowed to only use 1.
test 1
The following poll will allow 2 votes per user. … It will not show the results after you voted.
Test poll 2 votes per user
- option a
- option b
- option c
- option d
0 voters
test 2
The following poll will allow 2 votes per user. … It will show the results after you voted.
2 votes per user - result will be shown after sending you choices
- C
- D
- A
- B
0 voters
It seems, it’s possible to change your mind for your own vote. … that’s nice.
In my opinion, we need to hide the results until the “voting phase” is over. Otherwise intermediate results can be used to influence the voting process for others.
It seems to be possible do define “named votes”, so we will see who voted. I will not activate this option.
OK, so the first version allows you to remove your votes. If I understand it right, this means that if the voter base is engaged enough to come back to the poll a few times, then people can “correct” their votes to team up with the cluster of winning horses. Sounds like a decent idea to me.
Ah, that is the opposite view of mine. IMO it doesn’t matter if people are influenced (we’re not exactly voting for presidents) and instead it is a good thing. As long as we can’t tell who has voted on what.
I think that is correct. Nobody, with respect to @twMat, should ever know what you do in a ballot box.