'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
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
getting 15 seconds on a board with the infamous GO14 (in other words, where there's barely 15 people doing most of the talking)
Ooh, please don't let's start this up again, even in jest.
X-percentage of posts in the entire bureaucracy thread came from fourteen people.
And another percentage came from fifteen people, and another from sixteen people.
It doesn't mean anything.
There are about 800 registered, and 135 people voted.
Those are interesting numbers.
Okay, can someone explain the purpose of seconds for me? Is it to limit ballots or discussion or neither?
The notion that we might not want to jump into formal discussion for 4 days and voting for 3 days on a matter only one person is interested in discussing.
My understanding is that the purpose of seconds is to limit the number of things that are voted on by ensuring that one person can't force votes and discussion on a whole bunch of things that no one else cares about.
My take on the second thing is to prevent some random person who has been on the site for 2 seconds proposing us to discuss and vote on changing the board to Czecheslovakian. And since they proposed a vote and such, we will just have to waste time AND remember to vote against it.
I think what Laura, Katie and Sophie are saying are what most of us are thinking. Now if we require a large number of seconds, say 15, then instead of limiting discussion, we increase discussion in Bureaucracy to garner the requisite 15 seconds necessary for the first "official" discussion. This is counter-productive IMO. What we need to do is prevent Joe newbie from proposing the czech turnover, and I think requiring just a few seconds on that will prevent the discussion. And if Joe can get 2 or 3 people to second his foolish idea, the discussion will be minimal and the vote probably won't even approach MVT even at a low MVT number, and certainly won't win.
Quite frankly, I don't think we want to make each proposal a lobbying effort at the "seconds" stage of the game.
Maybe I now think we shouldn't even suggest to people the range of numbers they should vote for.
I mean, if some goose puts "10,000,000,000" into the box, then we can just ignore it, not let it skew the results to 99999999999, surely?
It might be seen as biased to say "pick a number, but here are some suggestions either side of fifty"...
If we allow any number then, to be fair, we need to allow fractions. Like .00000000000001.
Any whole number! There's no such thing as Eric the half a Buffista!
I'm voting for -10000000000000000000000i.