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
OK, I had to skip about 300 messages, and I have to say that I don't see how we got from "here are the results of the vote" to here.
We voted for having a quorum, right? Did we decide on the size of the quorum? It seems like that would be the first issue.
Also, I have to say I really really dislike the idea of having officers. A lot.
But given how this whole process has gone I won't accept rudeness. I really want an apology from Anthama for the "dicking" comment.
I would look at it in the context of... well, the context of the 300 or so last posts in this thread. I think that, while no one else used that word, there are many people who might have been thinking of similar ones when trying to describe the last 24 hours in this thread. IOW, I saw it not as an insult, but more as a "let's stop arguing in circles and actually get something done".
IJS.
But seriously, I don't think this is a new vote. I think this is amendment to clarify the will of the voters on the previous ballot.
That's why I was asking if "poll" would be a better term. We aren't trying to change the vote, just determine what people thought they were voting for, right?
We aren't trying to change the vote, just determine what people thought they were voting for, right?
Yep. But if we say we're having a "poll" on the "vote", will the results of the "poll" be official enough to modify the results of the "vote"?
Oh dear lord. I've officially snapped now.
A large, diffuse cocktail party.
Can I get a gin and tonic?
obviously this is anathema's warped definition of lurking
I'm afraid that the meta is reaching mega proportions.
t /in response to bitterchick
I think I'll have a vodka and soda.
t /in response to Anathema
I'm not sure what to suggest at this point. I'm going to read/skip/skim this discussion, but I honestly don't think I have anything else to add.
Jon's going to put up a form tonight so that we can get a clarification on the previous vote. Poll, vote, tally, whatever.
There was some confusion, and I'd really like it cleared up. Nothing new -- preferential posting was not part of the original vote.
It's an informational point, and an important one. No new nothing, not at this moment, please.
We aren't trying to change the vote, just determine what people thought they were voting for, right?
BUT, if enough people are for deciding questions with multiple answers based on a plurality, we can forget all the voting systems and whatnot, and just go from there. I mean, right?