Mal ,'Heart Of Gold'
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
We voted to decide things by voting, not consensus from whoever was in Beauracracy on a couple of days in the past.
That said, I'll be the third second (after Gandalfe and Noni) on the war thread.
Absolutely. Or some of us will lose our minds.
Some of us already lost our minds at the results of that last vote.
Before we discuss anything, there are 2 things that need to be done.
1. Open a Voting Discussion Thread.
2. Decide how long discussion are closed for (3 months, 6 months, 1 year are the proposals I've seen)
3. Which of course is going to lead to the inevitable-- how do we count that discussion.
Also, I am not sure whether this is a NEW war thread proposal, because no we actually have a war, in which case we should hear it out or a revival of the old one, which was defeated by our non-working consensus method, and therefore we can't bring it up again for an unspecified period of time.
Also, I don't THINK we have to vote to get a thread or an HTML page that lists the votes, results, and when they were so that we can refer to it if peopl emake new proposals.
Why are people so against bringing it up again if they're sure they will win?
Because I am sick and tired of the fucking endless debates.
Excuse me while I go doblerize myself.
Light bulbs, baby.
Thanks, Nutty. I still vote "Lightbulb". Whip Appeal
Okay! Look! It's a completely unfair ten-minute consensus on lightbulbs! We got anyone around who can make a topic?
OK-- and this thread is only onpen to discuss proposals, right?
Also, as much as I care not to discuss it, I think we probably do have to do a war discussion thread vote IF we get a fourth.
If we allow the war decision to be overturned because it doesn't fit the new rules, then does that mean that every other previous decision can be revoted?
If we allow the war decision to be overturned because it doesn't fit the new rules, then does that mean that every other previous decision can be revoted?
Why don't we take it on a decision by decision basis. I don't think we need to make a sweeping policy on this right now.
ETA: And there was no war "decision". ;)
I'm with Betsy. I absolutely do not have the strength to revisit every old issue because we now have new voting rules in place.