Oh, yeah. There was this time I was pinned down by this guy that played left tackle for varsity... Well, at least he used to before he was a vampire... Anyway, he had this really, really thick neck, and all I had was a little, little Exact-O knife ... You're not loving this story.

Buffy ,'Beneath You'


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 § - Mar 04, 2003 9:50:57 am PST #6526 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

The only opinion I have left is what Denise (and others, me included) have already said -- we need to clear up what people were voting for when they picked "simple majority".

First. It may make so much else moot.

Then, should the non-plurality definition of majority take the day -- go preferentially nuts.


Betsy HP - Mar 04, 2003 10:00:15 am PST #6527 of 10001
If I only had a brain...

Re: How we decide to shut up.

I am incredibly tired of Trying To Fix Things. It seems to me that every few days somebody discovers something else that is wrong with the culture and proposes how to fix it. And then we talk endlessly. And then something else needs to be fixed.

I don't think we need to be fixed. And whether or not we do, I am tired of talking about it.

This is not "I'm high-status, shut up now". This is one tired poster stating her opinion.


Jim - Mar 04, 2003 10:11:11 am PST #6528 of 10001
Ficht nicht mit Der Raketemensch!

What Betsy Said. Only I am high status. I have a crown. It has sparkles. You must obey.


Cindy - Mar 04, 2003 10:13:55 am PST #6529 of 10001
Nobody

And, seriously, if you want to discuss thtis further, I'm happy to do so
via email. Let's not clog this thread.

No thank you. Instead of repeatedly being told I don't understand, it would have been useful for you to take the points where I veered off and correct me. Now, I'm not interested. This isn't a taking my ball and going home sort of post. It's a blunt version of a I'm not going to vote for the preferential method post, so I don't want to make you repeat it ad infinitum.

I'm with ita, because a lot of this may be for nothing. If it's not, if people would prefer the preferential method, I trust you and the other Buffistas to do it correctly, regardless of the fact that I find it confusing.


§ ita § - Mar 04, 2003 10:19:27 am PST #6530 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Okay. I propose a vote. I suck at the official language thing, but I suggest something like:

DEFINITION OF MAJORITY

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter defined majority as 50%+1 votes when voting on item 3 in the previous ballot -- Sophia Brooks "Sunnydale Press" Feb 25, 2003 11:55:53 pm EST.

A no vote on this item signifies the voter was using the other definition of majority -- plurality (the largest number of votes, whether or not that number exceeds 50%)


PaulJ - Mar 04, 2003 10:20:24 am PST #6531 of 10001

Does "plurality" mean "the option with most votes"?


Betsy HP - Mar 04, 2003 10:21:05 am PST #6532 of 10001
If I only had a brain...

"Plurality -- the largest number of votes, whether or not that number exceeds 50%. For instance, if the votes are split 35%-33%-32%, the 35% number would win."

Edit at will.


§ ita § - Mar 04, 2003 10:21:18 am PST #6533 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Yes. I'll put that in.


Nilly - Mar 04, 2003 10:22:13 am PST #6534 of 10001
Swouncing

Okay. I propose a vote.

If you want me to, I'm here to tally.


Cindy - Mar 04, 2003 10:22:23 am PST #6535 of 10001
Nobody

I second ita's proposal with suggested edits.