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.)

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.)

Hil has said what I've been feeling without my cranky. Actually, frankly, I don't see a problem with status quo having the advantage in terms of numbers or whatever, because I think that the very action of voting on something carries the implication that there is something that could be better than the status quo, which negates any inherent advantage the status quo may have.

I think the some change is better than no change comes from the arguement that it just seems numerically unfair, if there are 2 options for change and 1 for no change, that the if one didn't have a runoff or preferential voting or something that option 3 has a better chance of winning.

However, we haven't come up against that yet, unless we try to combine a vote for

1. Do you think a certain number of people should have to second a motion before it goes to a formal discussion.

with

2.(If yes wins) How many people should have to second a motion for it to move to formal discussion.

I could have been reading more into posts than the poster intended.

I honestly think this is the case. The only thing I've seen posed is that sometimes "status quo" is an inappropriate default when the majority want change.

Let's not worry about this now and move on to deciding Sophia's round of questions.