Hopefully, the fact that there's a consequent voting process will mean that there won't be a lot of duplicative posts. There doesn't need to be "wrod"s or "I agree" or needless arguing with one person because we're not looking for consensus; it should really just be about persuasion and amplification.
Zoe: What's that, sir? Mal: Freedom, is what. Zoe: No, I meant what's that? Mal: Oh. Yeah. Just step around it. I think something must've been living in here.
'Out Of Gas'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
bon bon - Feb 24, 2003 1:06:37 pm PST #5197 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
Kat - Feb 24, 2003 1:10:32 pm PST #5198 of 10001
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
it should really just be about persuasion and amplification.
If this is the case, then is a full week necessary? Or, put differently, what time limit should there be on discussion?
bon bon - Feb 24, 2003 1:13:52 pm PST #5199 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I agree the full week is too much. I understand it's for people who might miss those days, but that only works if that person or more would change the outcome of the vote. It's not like among us we don't usually cover all the bases, so...
Jesse - Feb 24, 2003 1:15:26 pm PST #5200 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
THREE DAYS! THREE DAYS! THREE DAYS!
(That's a cheer, not yelling at you nice people.)
And I wouldn't say three business days, either -- three calendar days should do it, if at least one of those days is a week day and one of those days is a weekend day.
bon bon - Feb 24, 2003 1:15:39 pm PST #5201 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
Actually, do we really need a hard-and-fast time rule for arguing at the outset? We're not using the thread, as I understand it, to get everyone's consensus, just to present all the positions on the topic and refine it. We might be able to tell when that phase is over.
Kat - Feb 24, 2003 1:20:19 pm PST #5202 of 10001
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
Well, we'd need to know when to close it? Or, Shawn, are you thinking, whoever proposes it says, "I'm proposing this. I'd like to talk about it for X number of days and then vote" with X being no less than 2 or 3?
Speaker of the house! I'll assign the amount of time spent. I'll be Speaker.
Giddy at the inherent lesson in Civics this could be!
Kristen - Feb 24, 2003 1:21:35 pm PST #5203 of 10001
I wanna be the Whip! Whip!
bon bon - Feb 24, 2003 1:22:33 pm PST #5204 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I was thinking more along the lines of a loose guideline of three business days. If the discussion isn't over by then, someone can move in-thread to extend it for a day. Second and thirded motion should do it.
Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 1:22:35 pm PST #5205 of 10001
Up with the sun
I like the time limit because it means we have to act at some point. Otherwise, we might have one discussion drag on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
Kat - Feb 24, 2003 1:22:38 pm PST #5206 of 10001
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
Kristen, just think, it could be expanded to Cool Whip or Dream Whip or Whip Cream. Whip is so much better than Speaker.