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
Okay yes. But I was wondering about, beyond this initial voting to get a process in place, when would we have more than two options? Because honestly, I can't think of one. And, if there isn't one, then we're making ourselves and each other crazy over a voting process that will be used once or twice and then never again.
When I asked this awhile ago, the only thing that I remember anyone mentioning was changing the spoiler policy, wrt mentioning Buffy in the Angel thread and vice versa. But (a) that seems to have worked itself out, and (b) it could have easily been put into multiple two-option ballots, as first "should the spoiler policy change?" and second "should the waiting period be one week or two weeks?" since those seemed to be what most of the suggestions came down to.
apparently people have been so hugely dissatisfied with the Bureaucracy consensuses (consenses?) that we now have a voting system instead
One example of "bullshit consensus" which I think Jim came up with a while back on WX Contingency was "shall we have a new [something] thread".
It got raised three times, and the first two times it was talked down. The third time someone said "see, this is why we should have a [something] thread", it got made.
Nobody was saying that it was a case of deliberate consensus-rigging. But it was a good example, made more serious by the fact of technical problems with the board caused in part by large numbers of threads.
I sincerely didn't mean to imply that the status quo is a bad thing. I'm also sorry the rant reignited a debate that escalated into unpleasantness.
But now it's descalated (I think I'm making that word up), so it's all good.
I hate to say this, but I am disillusioned enought to think that this lovely consensus will break down at some point, too.
And I think the seconds thing should be a separate vote
I think we can do it on the same ballot, as I suggested above.
I think we can do it on the same ballot, as I suggested above.
With 0 as one option? That won't work if we are doing the "submit a number between 0 and 20" plan. It needs to be two votes. One to determine if there will be seconds, and another to determine how many seconds are needed.
Sorry,
I meant one proposal, 2 votes.
4a. Do you want seconds?
4b if seconds win, how many do you want?
OK doing the dance of Actually Formulating A Proposal:
Proposal: that we allow free-text entry of numbers into the vote for Seconds and for Minimum Voter Turnout.
Seconds: we ask for a number between 1 and 20 and ignore numbers that don't fit.
MVT: we ask for a number between 10 and 100 and ignore numbers that don't fit.
Rounding: we round to the nearest five.
Oops I feel like I stepped on Sophia's toes now.
And rounding to the nearest five only applies to MVT.
I meant one proposal, 2 votes.
4a. Do you want seconds?
4b if seconds win, how many do you want?
Maybe re-word 4b to "if you want seconds, or have an opinion on how many, even though you are against seconds, how many do you feel should be required?" ? or something?
No, that is OK. We just haven't decided on whether or not we need seconds yet. The MVT was on the previous ballot.
