So... no new thread? Is that what that means?
You know, I've saved lives. Dozens. Maybe hundreds. I reattached a girl's leg. Her whole leg. She named her hamster after me. I got a hamster. He drops a box of money, he gets a town.
Simon ,'Jaynestown'
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Consuela - Sep 02, 2005 8:44:34 pm PDT #5564 of 10001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Lee - Sep 02, 2005 9:07:10 pm PDT #5565 of 10001
The feeling you get when your brain finally lets your heart get in its pants.
I accidentally typed in the number of the "no preference" and "no vote cast" from the first question in the results for the second question, and have now fixed the mistake.
It didn't make any difference in the results, but now the numbers add up.
le nubian - Sep 03, 2005 2:57:50 am PDT #5566 of 10001
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."
Yep. No new thread.
That's disappointing.
Laura - Sep 03, 2005 4:49:43 am PDT #5567 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
And surprising. There goes the theory that all votes go Aye. Most likely Natter will be filled with new show discussion when the time comes. As a habitual skipper I know how difficult it is to keep up there, but I'll be delighted to discuss the new offerings whenever you have the inclination if I'm in thread.
§ ita § - Sep 03, 2005 4:53:25 am PDT #5568 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
There goes the theory that all votes go Aye.
That theory got busted a long time ago. Optimism lives on, though.
Consuela - Sep 03, 2005 7:45:09 am PDT #5569 of 10001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Not to throw a wrench in the works, but I wouldn't be surprised if people were so confused by the ballot they just voted no on principle. And I know the ballot-preparers tried to make it easy to understand. But I was really really confused by it, and it took several tries to parse it.
Jon B. - Sep 03, 2005 8:04:34 am PDT #5570 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Well then they should have asked questions or made suggestions during the five(!) days we discussed it.
Consuela - Sep 03, 2005 8:16:39 am PDT #5571 of 10001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Sure. And because I didn't have much invested in the issue, and because I don't have access to B.org during the work day anymore, I didn't.
I'm just hypothesizing here, Jon, not accusing y'all of anything. I don't know how it would have been possible to make it less confusing. But it was absolutely confusing. That's all I'm saying.
No need to snap.
§ ita § - Sep 03, 2005 8:22:30 am PDT #5572 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It's a complicated question. If you don't participate in the mitigation process, or ask questions about the ballot when it's been finalised ... well, that's a risk you run.
I don't know how the ballot itself could have been made simpler, but it is clear how each voter could have made sure they understood it.
bon bon - Sep 03, 2005 8:38:05 am PDT #5573 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I wouldn't be surprised if people were so confused by the ballot they just voted no on principle
I would be surprised. It's not like people here are reticent with complaints or questions if something's not clear. And if someone wanted the thread, why vote "no" on principle? Why not vote "yes" to everything?