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.

I feel like I've come back home! t fake tears of joy

ETA- 'cause of the serial comma reprimand, natch.

Along the lines of Anne's suggestion, I wonder if we made a mistake by considering this piece by piece. If we revisit Allyson's original post (I will Nilly it up in a Second) it seemed like a great idea. Very simple. I wonder if we should look at it as a whole.

This is Allyson's original post:

Okay, so. We have a Bureaucracy thread to deal with administratriva.

Why not a So It Is Written, So It Shall Be thread for community decisions?

Ex: Bill Buffista wants an asspicking thread. Betty, Brooke,and Bob Buffista all think that's a great idea.

Joanie, Jackie, and Julie Buffista think that idea sucks.

So, Stompy says, "We will open discussion on Asspicking Thread, now. The discussion will last for one week, and end on March 3rd, 8PM GMT, in the Supreme Court thread.

At that point, people can philibuster til their heart's content, until March 3rd, when a Mr.Poll announcement is made, and people can vote for another week. Votes are tallied and the decision is posted.

I was trying really hard to stay out of this because it was making me cry that this thing that I thought would simplify things made them worse.

Thanks for your post, Anne, but it makes me really sad that the first, trial, vote we've already taken might be thrown out. I really don't think it was invalid. A lot of people voted, and the winners were clear.

Back in the day, when a separate thread for natter was first proposed, it was met with a resounding chorus of HELL NO. I imagine the original proposer felt piled-upon.

That was me. I think I retreated back into MWT for about a week. And whimpered. Did I mention the whimpering?

But the "told ya so" value is priceless :-).

As for representation ... I suggested it a little over a week ago, got a HELL NO, and decided to drop it. And now I've had more time to think, and I don't like the idea. First, because electing people to represent what's really a core group of about 150 is both absurd and bound to be divisive; second, because anything that makes peopes blood boil this hotly is not, by definition, a good idea. I think voting is about as much anarchy-control as we need.