>I still want a minimum number of proposers to get it to the ballot
Why?
To avoid endless numbers of [formal discussions and] votes on trivia.
[]=edit.
We'll be in our bunk.
Wash ,'War Stories'
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
Typo Boy - Feb 24, 2003 2:52:41 pm PST #5244 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 2:53:07 pm PST #5245 of 10001
Up with the sun
I think requiring ten will just lead to a lot of headache-inducing campaigning. Three is fine by me, since it would seem to circumvent the "We have to vote on everything anyone posts!" possibility.
Sophia Brooks - Feb 24, 2003 2:53:28 pm PST #5246 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
I still want a minimum number of proposer to get it to the ballot
I like the minimum being 2 or 3, just so we don't REALLY have to vote and discuss the "Connor is HOTT" thread. Especially if we can only tackle one issue at a time (so one issue per week). It is going to take forever to get the list I made from WX voted on.
Sophia Brooks - Feb 24, 2003 2:54:08 pm PST #5247 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Or what LJ said!
(also, thanks for posting the issues again).
Typo Boy - Feb 24, 2003 2:54:58 pm PST #5248 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
How about five (which was actually someones proposal) as a compromise.
§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 2:55:47 pm PST #5249 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
But you don't have to discuss anything. I won't discuss anything I'm vehemently against. I'll just show up and vote no when the votes start.
edit: I really don't think we have enough things to vote on that we'd jam up the democratic process.
Oh! We could whiffle dumb suggestions.
Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 2:58:00 pm PST #5250 of 10001
Up with the sun
But you don't have to discuss anything. I won't discuss anything I'm vehemently against. I'll just show up and vote no when the votes start.
I think the issue is more clogging the thread (which, if I'm reading correctly, can only handle one issue per week) than having to vote on things you don't care about.
Edit: I saw your edit. I think there might be a waiting list to start with, but I'm not sure we'll have that many votes after that.
§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 2:59:09 pm PST #5251 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
But if no one discusses it, the thread isn't clogged. We're talking 4 days of resounding silence, is all. I just foresee a lot of lobbying for support clogging bureaucracy instead.
edit: damn, can't I get one of these off without an edit?
billytea - Feb 24, 2003 3:01:06 pm PST #5252 of 10001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
But if no one discusses it, the thread isn't clogged. We're talking 4 days of resounding silence, is all.
or else four days of arguing about whether it's worth even bringing up.
I personally favour it. If it's an issue that's worth discussing, I don't see any problem in getting five or ten people to endorse it being put up.
Lyra Jane - Feb 24, 2003 3:02:24 pm PST #5253 of 10001
Up with the sun
I could live with five as a compromise.
Edit: Do we know yet how we're going to vote on all this? A ballot with check boxes would seem to make the most sense, but I don't know if a)that would be a poll and b) it would clog the server too much.