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
I'm pretty sure Jon won't force you to rank anything past your first vote. But we can ask him tomorrow when he's off work.
I'm back! Band practice is over. :)
As much as I'd like to release my inner dominatrix, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything!
Kat & Jesse (edit: and Sophia) - If your first choice isn't one of the top ones, wouldn't you rather get something close to it than something far away from it? For instance, if you think votor turnout should be at least 50, but that choice is eliminated, and the final two choices are 10 and 40, wouldn't you rather see 40 win than 10?
I propose that we nominate and vote in a board of directors who can vote on all the little stuff for us, and we (the greater membership) only have to vote on board-shattering issues. Who's with me?
I most sincerely hope that you are kidding.
If not, Hell. No. No. No. No.
Did I mention no?
I think he was kidding. Also I want him to pretend that he was, even if he wasn't.
I thought he was kidding, too.
If I thought 50 was THE RIGHT NUMBER, I wouldn't care what the winner was. if it wasn't 50, it wouldn't be right!
In fact, fuck it. I'm cranky.
I vote, and I'm not kidding, and this is not natter, Life Sucks, Get a Fucking Helmet.
This is exactly what I was afraid would happen. Attempting to micromanage process to this level is crap, and it's really frustrating me.
If I thought 50 was THE RIGHT NUMBER, I wouldn't care what the winner was.
Fair enough. Only enter a first choice then.
To me majority means 50%+1.
In Canada you have more than one person on a ballot (last election, 5, I think) the person with the most votes wins. The party with the most seats in Parliament forms the government. If they have 50%+1 of the seats, they have a majority government. If they have less than 50% of the seats, with the other 50%+ seats being held by (at last count) four other parties, they are still the government, but a minority goverment and can be ganged up on by the other parties and voted down and then our government dissolves and an election has to be called. We had one government that lasted all of six months.
My point, and I don't really have one, is that maybe we need to define our terms before we vote on things.
If I thought 50 was THE RIGHT NUMBER, I wouldn't care what the winner was. if it wasn't 50, it wouldn't be right!
You could vote for 50 alone.
And other people could vote for "fifty, but if not fifty, forty, and if not forty, thirty is OK, but twenty? It'll be a cold day in hell".
Your right to vote for fifty isn't infringed by their right to vote for a cascade of less and less desirable numbers.
And, really sorry you feel that way, PMM. But people are seconding the proposal that we try the prefs-voting thing just the once and see if it's as annoying to take part in as it is to discuss.
OK-- can we agree to stop nattering on about voting methods and such--
Do preferential voting for this round only.
From now on, we will form SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
Can we all agree on this?
We are driving people out of Bureacracy by becoming bureacratic. The whole reason I voted for voting is so that we wouldn't be driving people away from decision making by having long, hard to follow conversations.
