Possible Duplicate:
Allow users to un-commit from locked proposals in the commitment phase

I can't stand being committed to a locked proposal (especially since it 'eats' one of my 3 possible engagements).

If this relationship cannot continue, for whatever reason, I request that Area51 allow me to be divorced from it.

  • Please enable the Uncommit button for locked proposals

I assume it's enabled for closed proposals, but please check to make sure...

| improve this question | | | | |
  • 4
    What about a Trial Separation button, if you're not sure? – Michael Petrotta Jun 16 '10 at 16:29
  • 1
    @Michael - Honestly this stems from the idea that a little polygamy is ok, but not too much - I mean, really, why put an artificial limit on love? – Pollyanna Jun 16 '10 at 16:35
  • 1
    I hate to do this to such a question, but allowing the ability to uncommit from a locked proposals is already requested... – Grace Note Jun 16 '10 at 16:35
  • 4
    @ccomet - I like my version better, so I'm closing his as a duplicate of mine. – Pollyanna Jun 16 '10 at 16:41
  • 1
    It seems like a simple query at this point could set 35 people free. Irreconcilable differences here as well. – Tim Post Jun 16 '10 at 16:55
  • @Pol - your love may be infinite, but is your bank account? – Aarobot Jun 16 '10 at 17:12
  • Your annulment has been granted! Mine too :) – Tim Post Jun 16 '10 at 17:29

Back in my day, commitment actually meant something. When you committed, you stayed committed, 'cause the thought of "uncommitting" negated the very idea of commitment!

Nowadays, 'seems "commitment" is just another empty word, bandied around by soulless hipsters, to be disingenuously embraced one moment only to be tossed aside the next, like some ripped and faded bowling league t-shirt bought for $1.13 at Goodwill.

Well, you can just rot in that t-shirt. 'Cause Life ain't all fairs and carny games, sunny. When the Apocalypse hits, you're not gonna be able to opt out, or sit on your porch drinking PBR and just watching. There ain't gonna be no choice in the matter, and little whiners who can't hack it 'l be the first tasty meals for the demon hordes. You'll be committed whether you like it or not, and you won't like it, and it won't matter.

Ya best just get used to it now...

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • But if we don't toss our commitments aside, what will the hipsters wear? Heaven forbid they should walk around naked! – Pollyanna Jun 16 '10 at 17:11
  • I agree, it's just like your t-shirt. – Aarobot Jun 16 '10 at 17:11
  • Commitment isn't a the perfect analogy. Commitment is more like buying a ticket to an event. If they sell enough tickets, they can pretty much guarantee the event's success (or cancel it if there is insufficient interest). That doesn't obligate you to go. If you would prefer to go to another event, you can return your ticket and use that "money" to purchase a different ticket. – Robert Cartaino Jun 16 '10 at 17:13
  • @Aarobot: actually, I put my $1.13 toward a used t-shirt branded by the company that I actually work for. It's ironically sincere... I think. – Shog9 Jun 16 '10 at 17:16
  • @Shog9: I think the word you meant was "sonny" not "sunny" slightly different meanings. – NotMe Jun 16 '10 at 19:27
  • @Chris: Pollyanna is well known for her sunny disposition ;-) – Shog9 Jun 16 '10 at 19:37
  • @Robert that's the reason for a "no refund" statement in the fine print - you don't have to go, but anyway they got the money to organize it – Tobias Kienzler Jun 17 '10 at 7:08
  • @Tobias: We don't have "no refund" fine print. If you aren't going to use the site (or if you'd rather "commit" to another site), un-commit. – Robert Cartaino Jun 17 '10 at 12:54
  • @Robert I was referring to your event ticket analogy. And I will only commit to something from which I won't wish to un-commit. I consider commitment a promise, not a checkbox. – Tobias Kienzler Jun 17 '10 at 13:16
  • @RobertCartaino is there no cost or penalty involved with un-committing as you mention above in your "We don't have 'no refund' fine print." comment? – Osteoboon May 20 '13 at 20:51

Clearly, this is your punishment for participating in a joke proposal. Remember the First Rule of Stack Exchange:

Don't cross Jeff.

Okay, despite the humorous language, the OP asked a serious question. So here is a serious answer. If the proposal is going to be locked or deleted, why stop at an uncommit button? The system might as well automatically uncommit all followers, in case they don't notice the status of the proposal for a while. I say this because I can't imagine any proposal ever returning to active status after reaching locked or deleted status, even though the possibility is technically open. Forcing people to manually uncommit is an annoyance at best and rubbing salt in the wound at worst.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 2
    No, the first rule is "Do not talk about Jeff". – gnostradamus Jun 16 '10 at 16:33
  • But the proposal is a soul sucking [redacted at recommendation of divorce lawyer]!!!! – Pollyanna Jun 16 '10 at 16:33
  • @gnovices, I was wondering how long it would be before someone posted that comment. You have exceeded my expectations. +1. – Pops Jun 16 '10 at 16:35
  • 2
    It wasn't a joke proposal. All of us fully intended on growing and maintaining the site. – Tim Post Jun 16 '10 at 17:00
  • 3
    @Tim - Zombie and raptor questions? Not a joke? The proposal may not have been a joke, but the site definition most certainly was - this is what the proposal turned into, regardless of the original intent. – Pollyanna Jun 16 '10 at 17:09
  • 2
    @Pollyanna - A "joke" proposal is pushing something through just to say that you did, with no intention of actually maintaining a community. This was not a "joke" proposal. The highest voted example questions were a bit silly, yes, however the proposal itself was genuine. There is a difference, nobody here was playing a prank. We just wanted a place to be creative, unwind and entertain (sometimes) serious questions and discussions. – Tim Post Jun 16 '10 at 17:20
  • @Pollyanna - I can name much bigger sites that many consider to be a waste of bandwith, cpu cycles, power and time that get millions of visits per day. – Tim Post Jun 16 '10 at 17:24
  • @Tim, since when has "bad things exist" been a legitimate justification for "I want to create a bad thing"? – Pops Jun 16 '10 at 18:45
  • @Popular Demand - Since when has 'bad' been objective in this context? – Tim Post Jun 16 '10 at 18:47

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