Designs for proposed new Head Office signage
- This topic has 91 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:Why is it not at the head of this site and the party's other sites? Like: Spintcom, facebook etc and
Because the brief was for a sign for head office, not a logo for the party. Such a thing would and should be voted on by the party not just a small committee.Though as it is the header on the site is not too disimular.
No one has said if the decided on design is gonna have a web address contact.The designs on this thread are all shown as they will appear on HO. While the first design, the one I think is the best, has a web address included in the design the one decided upon does not.
Unless I'm mistaken the top design in post #20 is the one going to be used. There is no web address on the main sign on the fascia. Not sure if the globe and web address that are in the window below it will be used in the actual finished project?
This was posted on another thread.
gnome wrote:This is the party's new fascia sign. Get used to it.As for a web address and globe logo?
SocialistPunk wrote:As for a web address and globe logo?Scroll back through the pages and look at design E on post number 20.There's a globe graphic and web address in the window above the door. Not sure if that part is going to be carried out in though?
Thanks for pointing it out DJP, completely missed it.I imagine if I was walking by and I was struck by the design on the fascia, and had an interest in politics, I would scan around and see the logo and web address. Yeah, it works.Does HO have shutters?
DJP wrote:As far as I know the membership where not consulted on the final decision.They weren't directly.Conference 2013 recommended (in a floor resolution) "that the EC call for a committee of three members to agree a new Head Office fascia design". The EC at its meeting in April 2013 moved "that the EC calls for nominations for a committee of three members to agree a new Head Office fascia design". Agreed. The EC at its meeting in June 2013 moved "that Cdes C Bennett, J Shodeke and D Whitehead be appointed to the three person committee, and, if needed, they can liaise with Cde N Windle and Cde M Bruce, who are graphic designers, and report back by the August 2013 EC Meeting". Carried (8-0-0) The Ad Hoc Committee considered a total of 33 designs all of which were submitted by Cdes Neil Windle and Mandy Bruce and started appearing on this thread from October 2012 onwards. Any opinions could have been made known to the Ad Hoc Committee, through members' branches, at Conference or directly to the EC.Invitations were made to members on a number of occasions to provide alternative designs or suggest amendments but none were forthcoming.The Ad Hoc Committee made a decision which it finally reported to the EC in March 2014.
DJP wrote:There's a globe graphic and web address in the window above the door. Not sure if that part is going to be carried out in though?The Ad-Hoc Committee decided that those items would not form part of the new sign.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/designs-proposed-new-head-office-signage?page=2#comment-11538There's no reason why the web address, phone number or suitable logo should not appear elsewhere.
SocialistPunk wrote:Does HO have shutters?Sorry, but details of the premises cannot be revealed or discussed online.
So the "membership", were not consulted!!! Adding "directly" in bold therefore, serves no "useful" purpose. It does one thing however, it legitimises those of us who wish to continue to have a "debate" on this issue. Adding "end of", therefore serves no purpose whatsoever.
As far as I'm concerned the sign at head office is just the sign at head office, there is no need to have a mass vote over what it should be.If we are deciding on a "corperate image" (which we where not) that is another kettle of fish and should be put to a vote that involves the whole party.The new sign is still an improvment on the previous one.
The membership were consulted about a having a new design and what it should look like in general. The reason why conference voted for a three-person committee to come up with a detailed design was that they realised it was not practical to leave this to a vote of the whole membership. We know that the result of any such vote is likely to be won by the least objectionable, i.e probably the most boring, design. A committee is a better way of deciding such matters rather than a referendum. In fact, the reason why the party has been discussing a logo for twenty years or more and has not been able to reach a decision is that members have insisted on the decision being made by the whole membership and nobody being able to agree on what designs to submit to such an ill-advised vote.I write as someone who thought that the present fascia of HO was ok (after all, it's only seen by passers-by in a street in one London suburb) and who doesn't like the decision finally reached, but I can't see any other way of reaching a decision on a matter like this.
ALB wrote:I write as someone who thought that the present fascia of HO was ok (after all, it's only seen by passers-by in a street in one London suburb) and who doesn't like the decision finally reached, but I can't see any other way of reaching a decision on a matter like this.Condorcet voting doesn't reach the least objectionable result, it fairly reliably finds a genuine pluarility, and could have been quickly and readily achived by an email vote: we are missing out on a trick by not using such devices. Ranked choice voting will play an important part in socialism.
Maybe it would, but I wouldn't want to be on the ballot committee:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Concordet+methodBut I nominate you.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Condorcet voting doesn't reach the least objectionable result, it fairly reliably finds a genuine pluarility, and could have been quickly and readily achived by an email vote: we are missing out on a trick by not using such devices.Doesn't the accuracy of this method depend on how many voters are involved? As I understand it the Condorcet theorem states that if each member of a voting group is more likely than not to make a correct decision, the probability that the highest vote of the group is the correct decision increases as the number of members of the group increases, with the paradox which shows that majority preferences become intransitive with three or more options. It is possible, therefore, for a certain electorate to express a preference for A over B, a preference for B over C, and a preference for C over A, all from the same set of ballots. For example: Preference First Second Third Voter 1: A B CVoter 2: B C AVoter 3: C A BA is preferred to B by a majority of voters and B is preferred to C by a majority. However, it is also the case that C is preferred to A by a majority.
The condorcet Jury Theorem is slightly different from condorcet voting, that is simply listing preferrences in order, and seeing which one wins in a pairwise comparison. So, in your above, C is compared with A, C with B and A with B, as if it were a series of two horse races. The voting paradox could apply, and there are a number of techniques for tie breaks in the usually unlikely event of a tie. Among a hundred people, you'd likely get a result.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradoxIn any event, you get rich information of preferences.Counting could be a sod, which is why you really need to use software (which is freely available online).
Maybe I'm not getting it, but I still say that the person, project or motion getting the most preferences compared with the others will be the one that the least number object to, i.e the lowest common denominator. I haven't done the maths so I'm prepared to be shown that I'm wrong. Better to have "artistic" matters settled by some other method, eg a committee chosen by lot (as in the case of the fascia decision) or by some artists or group of artists on a take it or leave it basis.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.