SLUTTTTTT

(this time I really meant it)

What's upsetting is not the discussion, protracted as it may be. What gets to me is the tone. I think if we don't like what someone is saying we need to respectfully disagree, but maintain a courteous tone throughout. With a dash of snark for good measure.

I agree with this, but I believe that the protracted nature of the discussion is leading to some frayed nerves, which is leading to tone issues.

I agree with this, but I believe that the protracted nature of the discussion is leading to some frayed nerves, which is leading to tone issues.

I agree with this too.

The only other thing where I think we would need a formal, procedures-laid-out-in-advance system of government would be if we (heaven forfend) attracted a particularly malicious troll or had a current member turn into a troll.

I really can't think of anything other than thread creation. I'm sure that something else will probably come up, but it'll be very rare. The procedure for a malicious troll or a spammer is already pretty much worked out. A current member who starts behaving badly really has no answer other than trying to convince them to behave better, because technologically, banning doesn't really work. If someone wants to post here bad enough, we can't really stop them. They can get another user id easily enough. You're better off just letting them know you think they're out of line, and then if they continue to annoy, just remember not to feed the energy creature.

However, we also need a way to come to decisions. Everyone should feel free to express their opinion, sure, but not everyone's opinion is going to be implemented. That's the way it goes. We've GOT to find a way to do this with less upset-making. I mean, for all I'm pretty involved with this, I've also felt fairly detached, and even I'm starting to be upset by all the brouhaha.

True. The best thing in the world would be to keep the whole process as simple as possible, and state things in a way that is 1) brief and 2) easy to understand.

I have a suggestion:

If we try something and it doesn't work, we can scrap it. Therefore, let's go with the one of the simpler ideas that's been posted. We'll take a one-time vote as to whether or not we want to keep voting as a viable option for decision-making. I propose that we'd have to have at least 51% of all entered votes to be a YES to get the thing to pass. An abstention vote would basically be the same as saying, "I don't care, but would be okay with whatever decision is made by a 51% majority of all voters."

Appended to the above question of voting would be the following statement: "If the majority of voters vote YES, then one month from the day the results of this vote is posted, the effectiveness of this method of voting will be evaluated. At that time, issues such as majority vs. plurality, how to decide when something goes up for vote, how long to discuss, etc. will be brought back up for discussion. Until that time, we will follow the following arbitrary guidelines: Three people other than the person who originally suggests an idea must second the idea. The idea then goes into discussion for three business days (counting from the time of the original suggestion). Then, a vote will be taken, using the method outlined above.

"If the idea does not pass, then the issue will be opened up for discussion again in Bureaucracy in three months' time."

What this gives us is a way to try out some version of a decision-making process, see if we like it, see what parts of it we like or don't like, and then come back to evaluate it.

special dispensation to bitch, moan, harangue, argue, scream, wail, and stomp on behalf of the rest of us

No. I have no need for someone to wield my prerogatives for me here.

Anne is wise.

Especially this part:

I propose that we'd have to have at least 51% of all entered votes to be a YES to get the thing to pass. An abstention vote would basically be the same as saying, "I don't care, but would be okay with whatever decision is made by a 51% majority of all voters."

Bureaucracy 2: Striking While The Irony Is Hot.

I have a suggestion:

I like Anne's sensible suggestions. I like sensibility in general, but I do think we should not worry about messing up the continental congress when we just want to know how to add new threads (and other stuff).

I will also clutch my toy totems closely to my chest. The ones named Cocktail Party, Good Enough, and Keep it Simple.

edited: in the spirit of nicemaking, not because I really believe in serial commas. Because I don't.

You need a serial comma there, David.

t ducking and running. really fast.