Sometimes I worry that when 10-15 posters post 150 times between them that it appears there is more support for or against a position than there really is.

That's why we're going to vote. The discussion volume won't count in the decision-making.

Sometimes I worry that when 10-15 posters post 150 times between them that it appears there is more support for or against a position than there really is

Well, that's a good reason to hold the vote. That, and there might be a plurality of people who say 'yea' at one moment, but that the majority, most of whom are asleep at that moment, would still say 'nay'. So I think that, post-voting-impplementation, it will be fine to have 300,000 posts (okay, not) debating a topic with endless circularity, as long as the voting constituency at large knows that it's the vote that counts, not the discussion.

[excessively wordy x-post with my woman Jesse!!]

No, I understood that, Jesse. Maybe I did not phrase what I meant very well.

I just meant that for people who don't hang in Bureau a lot, perhaps it would be easier if there were a thread were they could go and quickly run through everyone's postion without having to wade through hundreds of posts.

perhaps once an issue has been identified, each of us should refrain from posting more than once on the issue. Unless we want to reverse our position, that is.

Disagree. First, because I don't think people repeat themselves (much); second, because I think refining and developing viewpoints through discussion is important. I also think it's important to be able to defend your position.

As for the idea that too few people are posting too much and it's obscuring issues, my only response is a snotty one -- no one is forbidding the other 750 people posters to join this discussion, or preventing someone who wants to say their piece and leave from doing that.

You could just as easily lose it if it went to vote because you get sent out of town just as a 7 day discussion period expires.

I could always submit my vote ahead of the official voting period, much like an absentee ballot. Regardless, I think "a day or two" or discussions, as Wolfram suggested, is too short. Three business days I could live with.

If a vote is close and someone comes back and says, I wasn't here, I'd rather let the person submit a late vote

Very much against this no matter what the length of voting period. We'd never decide anything that way.

we can't tie ourselves in knots and/or require people to vote.

Okay, why can't we require people to vote? Where are the Australians? If you don't vote, you can't post! Or your membership is made inactive!

All right. This is obviously offensive and wrong, but it made me go to the Happy Mad With Power place for a moment. Sorry.

I just meant that for people who don't hang in Bureau a lot, perhaps it would be easier if there were a thread were they could go and quickly run through everyone's postion without having to wade through hundreds of posts.

Have you SEEN the show threads? If you're not willing to wade through hundreds of posts on any given topic, you won't like it here.

Jon's right by me. At some point you have to set a cutoff. Just to make things managable, if for no other reason. A cutoff line is always unfair to whomever is just barely on the other side of the line. But if you move the line for them, then you just make another person the one that is just past the line. Someone's always going to be just thismuch on the wrong side of the line. But over time that should even out.

I'm not talking now, but it doesn't mean I am not reading. and I want people to post more then once. a lot of the post are the thinking process that people are going through - and that helps me think through what I want.

also in general I am in favor of voteing - but I don't think it is nessacary for thread names. I like the clever names but if the were called 'Buffy:eel brains and chicken toes ' or 'Natter: rtuoi98757892hne' I'll be just fine -- as long as I know where to go. but others might care more than I do.

That said, I wonder if three days of discussion followed by three days of voting might not be enough?

I'd prefer this to a full week on either. Or maybe four days discussion/three days voting to round out the week, with exceptions made for long weekends or holiday periods. If you know you'd be away through the whole vote period, I'd think an email explaining and casting an early vote would be fine.

But I don't think any other limits on discussion are good. This isn't campaigning, where we each state our platform. Discussion brings out nuances and side issues, and hashing these out requires some back and forth. Otherwise, why not just go straight to voting?