For the fourth year running, the Stack Exchange team is organizing a "Winter Bash". Users earn "hats" for their gravatars by completing novel tasks (analogous to badges). Certain specific actions will trigger access to a (graphical) hat, which their gravatar can then "wear" at the user's option. Users will be able to see all the hats they've earned on http://winterbash2015.stackexchange.com. That site will also have an FAQ to explain how things work.

This event will run from 14 December 2015 to 03 January 2016. Individuals who don’t want to participate, don’t want to see hats, or are generally anti-hat will have an "I hate hats" option available (which will cause you not to see hats at all). The only visual change to the site itself will be the presence of the hats and the "I hate hats" button in the footer. Participation on one site does not affect accounts on other SE sites.

Two answers aim to collect votes for a community poll: Please, indicate whether you think Cross Validated should participate in this event or not (1 vote per user). Responses from the community are due by December 10. Moderators will inform the SE team of our collective decision.

Since results are effectively "due" about now (in fact this year we only need to say anything if the answer is no), I'm removing the "featured" tag now. People are still free to vote but I think the opinion is clear.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ dibs on "p-hat" $\endgroup$ – C8H10N4O2 Dec 7 '15 at 21:41
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @C8H10N4O2 Unfortunately, the selection of hats are not chosen by us. You might be lucky (I wouldn't mind a hat-matrix myself). $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 8 '15 at 2:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would be very geeky if there were "hat" alone, i.e. ^, to dress your avatar! ;) $\endgroup$ – Tim Dec 9 '15 at 13:41

Yes, Cross Validated should participate in Winter Bash 2015.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 30 votes in 3 days! Why do all these people not vote on all the other meta suggestions? This would make life so much easier. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Dec 9 '15 at 23:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @amoeba last year there were 56 votes (over a longer period, admittedly). It would be good if more people participated the rest of the time ... which is one reason why elections and these "popular" votes are very useful -- they get some people to meta who would otherwise never come. Typically a few new people participate regularly after such things. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 9 '15 at 23:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Maybe there should be a hat for visiting Meta weekly ;) $\endgroup$ – Tim Dec 11 '15 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ Consider accepting this answer, @Glen_b. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Dec 21 '15 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba sure, if there's a point in it -- to what purpose? $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 21 '15 at 2:46
  • $\begingroup$ Well, simply to visually mark this thread as "resolved" and "not requiring further discussions/actions". I don't know about others, but I usually scroll through the recent meta activity and look for non-green posts (i.e. without accepted answers) -- those that have accepted answers appear "done" and "closed". Do you have a different attitude towards accepting on meta? $\endgroup$ – amoeba Dec 21 '15 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba .. That's a good purpose. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 21 '15 at 10:33

No, Cross Validated should not participate in Winter Bash 2015.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Just to be clear... A "No" vote means "not only do I hate this idea, but I want everyone else to be left out, too." People who don't like hats could always vote "Yes" to give other people the option to have their (admittedly silly) fun, and then just click "I hate hats" and never be bothered by it. $\endgroup$ – C8H10N4O2 Dec 9 '15 at 18:48
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I respect differences of opinion on this, which people don't have to explain. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Dec 10 '15 at 2:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NickCox -- agreed, but given the "discussion" tag, explanations are certainly not out of place $\endgroup$ – C8H10N4O2 Dec 10 '15 at 13:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, much of politics (probably most) consists of explaining why other points of view are objectionable. In return those who voted this way need not be killjoys, which seems to be the implication of the comment. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Dec 10 '15 at 13:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .