I like the idea of cagematches, but groin strikes should be illegal.
Mal: Zoe, why do I have a wife? Jayne: You got a wife? All I got is that dumbass stick sounds like its raining. How come you got a wife?
'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
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
§ ita § - Feb 27, 2003 4:11:55 pm PST #5887 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
jengod - Feb 27, 2003 4:11:56 pm PST #5888 of 10001
Okay here's how I see it.
1.) Idea proposed.
2.) Idea discussed.
3.) Idea put on ballot.
4.) If 10 or more people show up to vote the balloting is considered valid.
5.) If more than half of the voting voters vote for it, it passes.
6.) If more than half of the voting voters vote against it, it goes into the idea underground for six months.
The end.
Sophia Brooks - Feb 27, 2003 4:13:43 pm PST #5889 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
That is how I see it too.
I think for that to happen, we have to ALWAYS frame voting questions into yes/no. Which I don't know is possible.
Wolfram - Feb 27, 2003 4:14:02 pm PST #5890 of 10001
Visilurking
First rule of bureaucracy deathmatch: There are no rules.
§ ita § - Feb 27, 2003 4:14:42 pm PST #5891 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
First rule of bureaucracy deathmatch: There are no rules.
It was for your own protection.
Don't say I didn't pretend I was civil.
P.M. Marc - Feb 27, 2003 4:15:34 pm PST #5892 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Can we call Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer?
Hil R. - Feb 27, 2003 4:15:48 pm PST #5893 of 10001
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
I think for that to happen, we have to ALWAYS frame voting questions into yes/no. Which I don't know is possible.
Can you think of an example where it wouldn't be possible? I can't think of anything we've decided recently that was more than a "should we do this?" question.
Wolfram - Feb 27, 2003 4:16:09 pm PST #5894 of 10001
Visilurking
jengod is me, except item 6 is backwards.
billytea - Feb 27, 2003 4:17:33 pm PST #5895 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.
I understand that Borda and Condorcet and Australian are "simple", but they don't seem it. They give me a headsche and they aren't transperent (and I took a whole course on hem at college1)
I can understand this. I mean, these systems are devised to be fair, to avoid certain distortions, and they do so by creating mathematical formulae that are not everyone's cup of tea.
But seriously, all a user needs to know is what they do to register a vote, and then what it does in principle. For instance, I'd describe the Australian system thus:
1. Each voter ranks all the candidates in order of preference.
2. The system works out the two most popular candidates, and then finds which one of them most voters prefer. That candidate wins.
Yes, the maths is more complicated than that. But to the user, that's not such an issue. All the maths talk is so much geekery (which is why I've been doing it, of course). For anyone else, I think the above is all that's needed to understand it.
jengod - Feb 27, 2003 4:17:58 pm PST #5896 of 10001
7.) If there are more than three choices regarding any particular issue (thread titles come to mind), a [fill in blank] of votes wins the day.
(If we stay with the three day voting period, this makes sense. Otherwise, we're going to be having about a billion ballots before we get to a thread name, etc.)