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.
I'm so sorry, but if it makes you feel any better, my fun-time-Buffy party night involved watching a robot throw Spike through a window, so if you want to trade... no wait, I wouldn't give up that memory for anything.
Buffy ,'Get It Done'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
Laura - Mar 13, 2003 3:15:57 pm PST #7488 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
Katie M - Mar 13, 2003 3:16:05 pm PST #7489 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
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.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 13, 2003 3:17:04 pm PST #7490 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
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.
Wolfram - Mar 13, 2003 3:56:51 pm PST #7491 of 10001
Visilurking
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.
John H - Mar 13, 2003 4:24:44 pm PST #7492 of 10001
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"...
Wolfram - Mar 13, 2003 4:39:27 pm PST #7493 of 10001
Visilurking
If we allow any number then, to be fair, we need to allow fractions. Like .00000000000001.
John H - Mar 13, 2003 4:42:45 pm PST #7494 of 10001
Any whole number! There's no such thing as Eric the half a Buffista!
Gandalfe - Mar 13, 2003 4:43:21 pm PST #7495 of 10001
The generation that could change the world is still looking for its car keys.
I'm voting for -10000000000000000000000i.
John H - Mar 13, 2003 4:44:40 pm PST #7496 of 10001
OK then I'm going to vote for an imaginary number. The number of Buffistas needed is the square root of minus one.
Gandalfe - Mar 13, 2003 4:48:13 pm PST #7497 of 10001
The generation that could change the world is still looking for its car keys.
Well, yeah. I voted for a large, negative imaginary number.