'Out Of Gas'
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
Please please please please can we not use the word "quorum" to mean "minimum voter turnout" or "minimum number of votes". Quorum really doesn't mean what we're using it for here. Not in a "maybe there's ambiguity" way like with "majority", but unambiguously.
My fault. Sorry.
bicyclops, I think your points are valid, and somewhat of an extension of my earlier point, that status quo would win out even where it obviously lost. But I don't think we need a hard and fast rule that status quo be on every ballot. Proponents of status quo, if any, will make sure it gets on the ballot. We need a hard and fast rule that on every vote there will be a way for one position to win, whether by runoff or preferential voting or other means. If the position that wins is status quo so be it.
Can I be cranky for half a mo and ask when the devil status quo became a dirty word or something considered a bad thing? Because that's the vibe I'm getting, and it's frankly kind of insulting.
status quo became a dirty word or something considered a bad thing
Huh?
I think I missed something.
And actually, won't 99% of our questions after this ballot be yes/no questions in which the status quo would win regardless. And in the vote for "minimum number needed" we can't have a no vote, so we just have to choose amoung a number of choices.
I don't think there is anything really wrong right now, and we won't really have many decisions to make until the time such as there are no more ME shows and we have to decide if we want to talk about other things.
Why do we need to decide all of this now anyway? Every vote is on a different issue, and would probably be structured differently. Why don't we see what the first bunch are, and structure each of those however seems best for those, see how that works, and then go from there. We're not trying to craft a constitution here.
Can I be cranky for half a mo and ask when the devil status quo became a dirty word or something considered a bad thing? Because that's the vibe I'm getting, and it's frankly kind of insulting.
This too.
I think I missed something.
Eh, it's probably the muscle strain and headache talking and causing me to read more into propositions than is actually there.
Edit: or not, as Hil seems to understand where I'm coming from.
Hil, then, can you explain it to me? I see no reason the status quo should win by default (because I'm sure the proponent of any given motion thinks it's less good than the alternative, otherwise, why make a suggestion?), but I missed the idea that all status quo is evil.
OK - I'm going to leave the thread again for the day so as not to get excited. People are taking offense. And I'm feeling offended by people people taking offense. So rather than get into the cycle we got into last time, I'm going to leave, and come back tomorrow.
I'm not so much seeing that all status quo is evil, but I have seen a number of "some change is better than no change," or words to that effect. (I'm sorry, I don't really have time to go back and find exact quotes. And it's not a major thing, just a general feeling I've noticed behind a few posts, and I don't totally understand why it's there, and I could have been reading more into posts than the poster intended.)