Phone Menu Voice ,'Conviction (1)'
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
Right. If I just just codified the rules we were consensing on, no point in breaking them already.
Edited to add: but Wolfram, (a) this is an uncommon circumstance, since we're still working out the kinks of the system; and (b) not being able to get a fourth for your proposal might be a sign that it's not ready for the Voting Thread yet. Try it again next week, or in two weeks, and maybe you'll get the seconds you need.
Well, except we've had up to 4 votes on a ballot before. It seems related, as is the thing that just came up in the voting tread about whether discussion are tabled (US sense) if not enough seconding is done)
This is the kind of irrational thinking that we were doing away with in the first place by structuring a formal system.
Are you confusing "irrational" with "disagrees with me"?
There's nothing inherently irrational about discussing one thing at a time. There is nothing inherently irrational about discussing items in the order in which they are formally accepted for discussion.
Yeah, back to what I was talking about...
Can we, as somebody said, move COMM "above the fold"?
I love my COMM, and I no want to scroll.
And I still think my proposed rearrangement was BRILLIANT (and hot!) but it's okay, I can let it go. I'm cool. Like Fonzie. And, for that matter, Fozzie Bear.
Am I the only one who thinks reasonableness should be a necessary factor here?
What exactly are you finding unreasonable?
Is anybody going to stand up and say "COMM doesn't belong above the fold?" Stand up now, please.
it DOES belong above the fold! It does!
although "decided" needs to be defined.)
Exactly. Buffista A points "I said no blah thread" two months ago, nobody said anything else pro or con, so there was a consensus against blah. Nobody can propose blah for (3 or 6) months.
COMM is fine over the fold. In fact, I think it is a BBB issue.
Am I the only one who thinks reasonableness should be a necessary factor here?
I'd really like you to take my battlescarred word for it that the most reasonable thing is for us to be able to limit the discussions in both scope and time. Historically the fallout from overtalking has tended to be more significant than the actual issue under debate.