That's beautiful. Or taken literally, incredibly gross.

Buffy ,'Potential'


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


moonlit - Mar 04, 2003 11:37:30 pm PST #6878 of 10001
"When the world's run by fools it's the duty of intelligence to disobey." Martin Firrell

Well after reading the couple of hundred messages attempting to formulate the perfect polling process all I can say is, "Don't you wish you'd given them a politics thread?"

Now, after another 900+ posts and 4 days spent trying to formulate the perfect polling process, I repeat, "Don't you REALLY wish you'd given them a politics thread?"

My two cents: This whole issue, or set of issues, began when the board broke and the Buffistas sought refuge back at WX. At the time, the breaking of the board itself, celebrity postings and outside links to those postings, unpleasant and trollish behaviour, and thread proliferation were all raised (or re-raised) as problems or potential problems, most of which were interconnected. The debate about these issues raised some other concerns regarding the decision making process, specifcally decisions being taken when larger, more vocal segments of the Buffista community were around which left some others feeling left-out/over-ridden/out-shouted.

So in the last week or so we've discussed the decision making process, polled the Buffistas community, concluded that most of the active members favour a voting process to make decisions about serious issues or changes within the community, and calculated a figure for the 'active members'. Now we need to figure out how many of the active members are needed to be fairly certain that any change or policy decision is really necessary and also a way of deciding things that have more than two possible answers.

At this point I would just like to add that as a person who has spent 5 years studying politics at a tertiary level, has worked in government at both state and federal levels, was part of the constitutional convention, and is an Aiustraiiiliiianiii citizen born and bred, even I ended up confused and cranky at various times in the past fifteen hundred or so posts. I therefore have nothing but sympathy for all those who are not particularly politically inclined or for whatever reason have been upset by much of the discussion of the last few days.

This is in no way meant to be disrespectful of the many well-written and erudite posts on voting procedures, democracy, community values, and such, nor is it meant to be patronising or critical towards those who ask questions or air their feelings of disquiet, but is only meant to acknowledge that in this on-line, not physically-in-the-one-place-or-one-time, community meeting board, straightforward, logically progressing debate is not always possible given that people can jump into the debate at any point and with any level of lead-up knowledge.

I would also like to add that ALL of the aforementioned problems/issues/concerns, as well as the ones that have been raised in the last few days (eg. numberslutting and Wrodding), come from the same root cause as most societal problems in real life, population growth. Like most things I guess, an in-joke such as numberslutting within the active component of a hundred or so people has the potential to become annoying and thread wasting when practiced by the active component of 800 or so people, especially when the practice of it infers inclusiveness in that Buffistas community.

I think I've forgotten whatever it was that I was going to say, but I'll finish by supporting Jon's suggested ballot as it comes across as clearly written, easy to understand, to-the-point, and contains some requisite Buffistas humour.

Sorry for being so wordy but remember that even Greek (birthplace of democracy) politics no longer works as smoothly and democratically as it did when only male citizens were allowed to participate and political assassinations or incarcerations were popular ways of clarifying the discussion.

Edited to contextualise Greece.


Rebecca Lizard - Mar 04, 2003 11:40:04 pm PST #6879 of 10001
You sip / say it's your crazy / straw say it's you're crazy / as you bicycle your soul / with beauty in your basket

Think of it as a new vote, Liz. Vote for whichever makes the most sense to you regardless of your last vote.

OK, really, it isn't about re-interpreting the results of the last vote?

Because the ballot says "future votes". It doesn't say anything about how we were going to resolve this issue of *whether there's going to be a majority or not*. Because... that *wasn't* resolved by the last vote, was it? Because we don't know whether people were sincere or not!

And if not, then maybe possibly the ballot is confusing to people with the size of reptile brains.

Which, you know, maybe there's only one of us. But. Um.

t dies of shame again


Java cat - Mar 05, 2003 12:10:12 am PST #6880 of 10001
Not javachik

Include this language in the announcement itself ? (It's on the ballot, yes. Not on the announcement.)

"Voting starts Tuesday night (March 4, 2003) at midnight and closes Friday night (Mar. 7, 2003) at midnight (that would be "Board Time", i.e. EST)"

RL: no, not directed to you. Coincident with your posting.


Rebecca Lizard - Mar 05, 2003 12:25:40 am PST #6881 of 10001
You sip / say it's your crazy / straw say it's you're crazy / as you bicycle your soul / with beauty in your basket

That wasn't what confused me, if that question was directed to me.


Noumenon - Mar 05, 2003 12:54:49 am PST #6882 of 10001
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti

("How many Buffistas...?" "Check the FAQ.")

Way taggable.

this year we will have gender-separate bunny ears.

Because every meara needs a little surrealism.

Anyway, I valued everybody who contributed in good faith - which means everybody.

But, especially to mention, Sophia Brooks? Because she's been with this all the way, contributing and clarifying the issues, without stepping on anyone's toes (tough to do in this discussion), even though

it was making me cry that this thing that I thought would simplify things made them worse.

Out of all the fourteen, I think Sophia is the one we would have made the least progress without, from her précis of the W/X discussion onwards.

Bureaucracy II: Screw Kafka, we're talkin' Beckett.

Google embiggened my mind about Beckett with this well-worded biography that ends:

He continued to write until his death in 1989, but the task grew more and more difficult with each work until, in the end, he said that each word seemed to him "an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."

Bureaucracy 2 might be a short thread.

this year we will have gender-separate bunny ears.

Because I'm still wondering what's different about male and female bunny ears. (This question is for Plei, but I bet billytea has an answer for it too.)


P.M. Marc - Mar 05, 2003 1:16:00 am PST #6883 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear

Simple. Pink and blue.


Cindy - Mar 05, 2003 5:30:41 am PST #6884 of 10001
Nobody

Out of all the fourteen, I think Sophia is the one we would have made the least progress without, from her précis of the W/X discussion onwards.

wrod.

Also - Jon, good job.


Sophia Brooks - Mar 05, 2003 5:31:08 am PST #6885 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

Thanks Noumenon. I don't think I'm the only one who worked hard, but that means a lot because yesterday was a very, very, down day for me because of this.

Also, I am wondering, becuase of Rebecca's question if we should add to the press announcement

1) the time period of the vote

2) Somthing saying: This is a re-vote of this question with clearer wording. If you have changed your mind since, you are welcome to vote differently. If you voted for supermajority, you are welcome to vote.


Sophia Brooks - Mar 05, 2003 5:31:39 am PST #6886 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

Oh-- and yay Jon for pulling this one together!


Cindy - Mar 05, 2003 5:36:01 am PST #6887 of 10001
Nobody

This is a re-vote of this question with clearer wording. If you have changed your mind since, you are welcome to vote differently. If you voted for supermajority, you are welcome to vote.

I recommend:

This question further refines how we determining a winning vote. The first ballot didn't take into consideration that some issues up for vote would have more than two choices. Your vote on the last poll does not commit you to vote in any certain way on this poll.

Because really? Supermajority has nothing to do with this. I've seen people say it might have lost unfairly, but it didn't. No matter how you look at "majority" in the first poll, supermajority (or higher majority as it was defined) made it clear it was a percentage higher than 50%. The problem lay in my use of the term simple majority when I really should have used most votes.