Jon, I forgot a bunch of stuff.

Say (based on all the numbers before, including the tweaking) all choices but "75" and "100" got eliminated. We'd then take a look at the second choices of all the folks who got eliminated, right?

Well the people who chose either "10" or "25" had second choices that also got eliminated.

"50" is also eliminated. All three people with "50" as their first choice, had "75" as their second choice. This boosts the "75" tally to thirty votes (remember it was tweaked down to 27).

"90" was eliminated. All fourteen people who had "90" as their first choice, chose "100" as their second choice. So their fourteen votes get added to "100" tally, and "100" then has 40 votes.

Then does 100 win? If so, doesn't this seriously discount all the people who voted for 10 and 25. What about all the people who voted for "50" that never would have ranked 100 as anything but last place?

So never mind tabling the discussion for a few days, then?

Sigh.

For what it's worth, I'm also very tired of this. And since I'm not going to elaborate, I know that's not terribly helpful, but there you have it.

Good lord, 257 posts since I last looked in here.

No carpal tunel yet?

Why not ask whether, when there are more than two choices, people would just prefer that whichever has the most votes wins, or if people would prefer the preferential tally?

I think we may have to go back and ask people to clarify how they want voting to work - by a vote. It's clear there are several issues that would still have to be resolved before we started using voting.

But this is also a good example of still talking about it.

Liese is just the most recent person whose fur is standing on end. Ple, bitterchick also have strong objections. Kat, Burrell, ita strong reservations. These are active people in our community. I think poor Sophia is getting burned out trying to keep this on the rails.

I motion that we stop talking about voting and ways to vote and what needs to be done with the vote and how preferential voting works or anything that contains the letters "v-o-t" in that order until next Monday.

I think we might want to address the Angel/Buffy whiteout and crossover issues within the threads themselves. Probably after Angel airs.

OK, now I think we should stop talking about preferential voting and forget it. It's been explained, some people still don't get it and are annoyed by that, other people think it's totally obvious, and are annoyed by the not-getting-it people. Forget it. It's too hard. If we have to have 5 rounds of yes/no voting to get to a decision, so be it.

But I am hearing and feeling "critical irritation mass" coming on. If the point of establishing the voting is to ease friction, then let us keep that in mind now. Because I'm seeing friction. And resentment. The first vote and the consensus around it seems tenuous to me now and I would ask you all to hold on to it...gently. A little time and space might be good here.

Yeah, I agree with this.

I guess what's frustrating to me is that we've been really close for awhile, but every time we seem to reach consensus (for example, I thought we'd agreed to try preferential voting this one time), the discussion goes in circles and gets dragged out some more.

But this is the exact problem! The 5 or 10 people who were around for one set of a couple of hours were coming to a consensus, but then a different 5 or 10 people were around for a different set of a couple of hours, and they didn't agree. This is exactly where we got into trouble -- a bullshit "consensus" of people who were reading the Bureaucracy thread at noon EST (or whatever).

I was with the people who said "stop talking" but then more people talked, so I talked, so sue me.

If we have to go 5 rounds of yes/no voting...

This assumes people wouldn't be happy with the "which ever item got the most votes option".

I completely agree with Jesse about the false sense of consensus.

Shelve. Okay. Maybe. Except for the point that Elena brings up which I think is perfectly valid:

The way this conversation has been set aside (for a week, for 2 days, whatever) is a brilliant example of why consensus wasn't working for me. People were discussing - and discussing, and discussing, and discussing some more - a subject and several people voiced an opinion that the discussion was going on too long. Other people wanted to discuss more. Fine. Valid opinions, all. But then two (or three or four) people on the board at the same time reached the decision to shelve discussion. I don't know how many people wanted the discussion shelved, because there was no clear consensus, or a vote, or a plurality, or a majority. And this is why some people felt the system was broken.

Ditto here.

I entirely agree with this. I'm guilty as fuck of it too, but I will say, it's really upsetting to me when people say, "I'm getting upset and I want you to stop talking about it" and as a community we do. What if I'm upset that we won't talk about it? I get pissed when people kvetch about other people in different threads, threads in which they do not post and I've asked people to stop, but is that really my right? What if the people kvetching need to say something and my need for nicety and quiet is stepping on their need to talk?

If I want to discuss the War, voting procedures, politics, why GWB rocks (not my stance, but whatever) and someone comes in and says, "the politics need to stop because I'm uncomfortable" does that mean it stops? What if I am uncomfortable with being silenced? Should I say, "You know what, I'm uncomfortable with your discomfort and I don't like when you try to shoot me down." Then we are at a standstill.

Kat, Burrell, ita strong reservations.

I have strong reservations, but I don't have a problem with it being discussed. When I do have a problem with it, I'll say something or I'll stop reading for a while.

But, I think the ability of some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

I would definitely prefer not to talk about it. I'd much rather sit back and natter. But, honestly, maybe this is part of leaning into discomfort. Maybe talking about the things which are hard is what makes it a safe place to just natter.

If you all understand that, you are amazing. It's 6:57 and I'm a little loopy.

But, I think the ability of a some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

Here's how I'm coming at this though: Taking a day or two off from a particular dicussion seems like the lesser of two evils. Some people want to discuss, others are aggravated with the discussion. If we take a break, the people who feel like they have a lot to say still can write down notes or something, and just say their piece after a resting period. I mean, right? Are people actually going to feel alienated by not talking for a day or two? If we don't take a break, it seems like there are people who are going to be alienated by the continuing discussion.

I don't know.

I just desperately feel that if we could get these basic procedures hammered out, we won't have to revisit them, and future decisions can be made more smoothly, in whatever way.

sigh

But, I think the ability of some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

I asked for a break just because I still think there's a fair amount of consensus required here before things get taken to a ballot, and I didn't see that agreement. I think the best chance for everybody to be at least comfortable with a new round of voting would be to stop discussing the voting details for a while.

But, honestly, maybe this is part of leaning into discomfort. Maybe talking about the things which are hard is what makes it a safe place to just natter.

You can lean so far into discomfort that other people want to get away from you. Personally, I'm itchy to resolve the voting issues because I still believe having that settled will be helpful. However, separate from my want, I am seeing not merely discomfort but genuine alienation arising from this talk. I don't think that hashing out voting methodology is where we should break the back of the board.

If there is any place where I think we could use continued discussion, it would be back to the broader issue of how we see this board. And maybe that should be in Natter rather than Bureaucracy. The schism I'm seeing seems significant.

Jesse, it's not that I have a burning urge to discuss it. And at this point, I am not discussing the voting anyhow (in the words of a former boss, I've moved from the problem at hand to process). My issue is a more of a general one -

I think the ability of a some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

It's not this conversation, but conversations in general. That's what I am chaffing about. I don't care if we vote ever again at all. I don't care if we are talk 'til we're blue in the face. I am concerned that "two (or three or four) people on the board at the same time reached the decision to shelve discussion" and poof it was done.

It's happened numerous times (when Burrell got pissed on WX, for example, about the circular discussion and Shawn called her on it or anytime politics comes up) and I'm worried that we make it okay for those with higher status to shush people when they are uncomfortable, regardless of how the people shushed feel.