'The Message'
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
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.
That wasn't what confused me, if that question was directed to me.
("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.)
Simple. Pink and blue.
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.
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.
Oh-- and yay Jon for pulling this one together!
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.
That's great Cindy. Just want to make sure it is clear that it isn't a poll.
I added the polling dates. Cindy - How would you incorporate your new refinement of the intro to the existing intro? 'Cause I'd like to keep the humor of the existing one.