Yeah you’re right, the votes’ meaning is our sticking point. As you say, I read the original proposals as more hypothetical than intended. As a result I understood the community’s yes vote to mean “yes we can hold some kind of contests,” and you understood it to mean “yes we can hold these contests.”
I do want to articulate where my reading came from. As you pointed out, voters read this sentence, which clearly explains your contest ideas.
Voters also read this sentence, which suggests that a yes vote was not a blanket approval of all those contest ideas.
To be clear, not trying to take a dig here. I’m trying to clearly articulate where confusion came from to prevent these kinds of misunderstandings in the future.
All that said, your proposal is a great solution! Holding votes for the next contest would absolutely make sure there is community consensus for each contest before it happens. And if the community gets a say in the next contest, that may even generate more hype. That’s way better than the proposals I had honestly. @Planetperson you wanted polls like this too, what do you think?
Lastly, Marendar. Props to you for looking back through all that old material to count stuff up. Seriously. I was just rolling with what I remembered from the original topic, but obviously my perception was skewed.
I haven’t been talking against Marendar, or any of this really, because I like/dislike certain contests. I’m cool with a Marendar contest. I was concerned because I wasn’t convinced there was community consensus. In terms of freedom, if Greg has a specific vision for Marendar, then I’d want to respect it, but really if the winning entry is too far off the mark he’ll probably just say so. So I’ll have to think about that more. I bet your suggestion of getting a basic description would bring more people onboard.
Seriously, thank you. You’ve been patient with me and thoroughly addressed my concerns at this point. I’m looking forward to the contests!