Wash ,'War Stories'
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
Nutty-- this is what I'd like to see happen-- but we voted to continue discussion until the end of the vote so this:
4. End of day 4 of discussion. Voting opens for proposal 1. If necessary, proposal 2 may immediately take over Light Bulb, demarcated by someone official marking "Here ends the Light Bulbing of proposal 1. Go vote [link]."
can't happen. We would have to wait until the end of the vote.
I think the process we had before voting was instituted was valid. But I disagree, in this case with the following:
Betsy's suggestion was IF WAR BREAKS OUT.
NOTHING has changed.
Yes, it has. A very big thing has changed. War has broken out. And all the people who didn't chime in when we first visited this may feel differently now than they did when war was a hypothetical.
If our "wait" and revisit it in 3-6 months thing is going to hold (which we didn't have at the time of the discussion) but our "if something significant changes" is not going to hold for to this decision, does the fact that fewer than 42 people chimed in on the decision carry any weight or not? Frankly, my head is spinning.
Honestly, I think the war thread will get voted down. The proposer can't even get a 4th second. But if he gets it, are we really going to not let him bring it to the discussion thread, because 36 people weighed in, some changed their minds, some got bored and the we talked about the NAFDA threads, had the monkey naming incident and whatever else?
Didn't we vote to close discussions during voting?
[edit: Meaning, why couldn't Lightbulbs have proposal #2 discussion open while proposal #1 is being voted on?]
For the record I am strongly against this. It puts all other proposals on at least a one week delay if not two, three, four weeks or more.
I don't see what the alternative is. I really think that having the discussion thread open for several discussions at once would completely negate the purpose of having a dedicated discussion thread. And I really don't see us having so many decisions that we will end up with a 4-week backlog.
No, we decided to keep it open until voting closes.
But if he gets it, are we really going to not let him bring it to the discussion thread, because 36 people weighed in, some changed their minds, some got bored and the we talked about the NAFDA threads, had the monkey naming incident and whatever else?
Yes. That's what I'm proposing. Because we talked about it and we decided not to do it. That's how the process worked. It's only been a month since then. War was maybe 5% less likely then than now. I didn't hear anybody pop up and say "But what if there ISN'T a war?"
This thread has had no problem with several competing discussions. I don't see why the discussion thread would suffer too much. And the rarer it happened, the rarer the sufferage.
Note: I'm no longer making sense to myself. I'm gonna turn in now.
No, we decided to close it during voting - or at least, to close it for the topic of the vote that's
argh
I can't talk anymnaeroree
And I thought the original proposal was "Because there will be a war," not "if there's a war."
No, we decided to keep it open until voting closes.
Oh, okay then. Nevermind.
Sorry Jess-- I was wrong-- we did vote to close the discussion.
Laura "Sunnydale Press" Mar 19, 2003 12:06:31 am EST