Okay - sorry. And thanks, you two.
Don't worry, we're sure to spot Faith first. She's like this cleavagy slut-bomb walking around 'Ooh, check me out, I'm wicked-cool, I'm five-by-five.'
Willow ,'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
Cindy - Mar 14, 2003 2:52:27 pm PST #7570 of 10001
Nobody
Jess M. - Mar 14, 2003 2:58:21 pm PST #7571 of 10001
Let me just say that popularity with people on public transportation does not equal literary respect. --Jesse
I just popped into movies for the first time and caught this typo in the blurb:
gossip about upcoming fims
What's a fim?
Cindy - Mar 14, 2003 3:06:32 pm PST #7572 of 10001
Nobody
It's like a fam, only flimsy, in a flim-flam way that only fims can be.
Jess M. - Mar 14, 2003 3:10:29 pm PST #7573 of 10001
Let me just say that popularity with people on public transportation does not equal literary respect. --Jesse
fabulous
John H - Mar 14, 2003 3:38:23 pm PST #7574 of 10001
Where are we on the "put in a number" thing?
I was thinking, rather than saying "put a number between 1 and 100" which might inadvertently encourage people to be "reasonable" and just vote fifty, we should just give opinions voiced here, so we'd just say:
put a number in this box please [ ] (numbers suggested by Buffistas range from ten to sixty-five but please choose whatever number you want)
for MVT.
I think that's fair for MVT. For seconds I think that the numbers are as low as one and as high as fifteen? But someone would have to check on that. I think either Gar or Wolfram said fifteen?
Liese S. - Mar 14, 2003 3:40:43 pm PST #7575 of 10001
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
I really think you need both upper and lower limits to prevent skewing by posting ridiculously extreme numbers. More of an issue with high than low, but still.
Edited to add, it's potentially a problem anyway, but with a small range, it's less likely to be significant.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 14, 2003 3:42:56 pm PST #7576 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
I haven't heard anyone proposing anything higher than 65.
John H - Mar 14, 2003 3:48:33 pm PST #7577 of 10001
ridiculously extreme numbers
I think if we get one voter who puts in "a million" then yeah, we can safely call that a Spoiled Ballot without becoming evil dictators.
What do you think of wording it that way though: "buffistas have suggested numbers between x and y, but please put in whatever you think"?
bicyclops - Mar 14, 2003 3:53:53 pm PST #7578 of 10001
I like having the preset limits, otherwise someone's got to decide where to draw the line on what's extreme. It makes more sense than saying "if we decide whatever you think is extreme, we'll reject it after the fact."
DavidS - Mar 14, 2003 3:58:55 pm PST #7579 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
What do you think of wording it that way though: "buffistas have suggested numbers between x and y, but please put in whatever you think"?
I think the point/counterpoint posts of Sophia and Liese would do a better job of explaining what the implications were for each choice. What a high number for MVT would do, what a low number for Seconds could do.
The effect is kind of the same - trying to give quick information that encapsulates longer discussion, but putting it on the ballot that way is sort of prescriptive, whereas reading the positions would allow more room for considering it.