Personally, I'm glad we have the Bureaucracy thread. I know some people have been taken aback by bickering, arguing, debating, etc., etc., but there are things that need to be talked about, and it's nice to keep all of the potentially (to some people) unpleasant and (to some people) boring administratrivia in one place.

It allows us to go and enjoy Natter, the show threads, Bitches, etc. without having to worry about the nuts and bolts of keeping this place running relatively smoothly.

t /pollyanna

I do, however, think that reading days' worth of Bureaucracy discussion in one go is a bad idea for reasons that others have stated far better than I ever could.

I'll be doing the Bureaucratic Decisions summary over the next day or two. What I plan to do is skim through the thread, and note things along the lines of thread proposals, procedural proposals, and the like. I will skip over thread naming, thread rollover, and whitefont requests.

When I'm done, I will list the topics that were raised, the date a topic was raised, and the date that a thread was created or the approximate number of days it took before the topic died down.

I suggest that the topic die-down date be the date from which we start the proposed (number) month moratorium on discussion of that topic. I do not plan to count how many people were for or against a topic, or who they were. I don't wish to start a debate on whether or not there was a proper consensus, or on why something was or was not passed.

Sound good?

---

This is the original list of issues that came up at WX.

I just wanted to give people an idea that we are very close to coming to an end, and that many of the things on this list were pretty much decided against by concesus of not bringing them to proposal.

This list will beposted and discussed again at Pheonix This is a list of proposals and issues.

1. immediate problem of the board being down and how we can fix it (which ita is doing)

• Take out older closed threads and archive them elsewhere, with a separate tool for Nilly-age for the archive if necessary (Discussion in Building a Better Board)
• Modify search functions so that there is a size limitation on the result (Discussion in Building a Better Board)
• Politely ask the webmaster/mistresses of Whedonesque, slayage.com & spoiler slayer, etc. not to link directly to the posts, but to use quotes +/- link to the main page (done)
• A few days' suspension of new-user registration after a celebrity post, with an gently-worded encouragement to the newbies to lurk a while and come back so-and-so-many days later if still interested
• Review threads for redunancies, obsolete threads and possibly joining threads together (will this actually help anything technically? Although it might stop arguements FOR thread prolif)) This is the only one that I think needs community input. Other issues are more technical.
• Limit automatic page refresh from Message Center to no more frequently than 5 minutes. (done)

2. HOW we decide things, because I think that will eliminate any of this talking and talking and talking about something until finally we don't decide. Or make a decision because people objecting have left the thread Suggestions

• Closed Decisions (ex: War Thread has been voted against, no more requests for 6 months) (This still needs to be dealt with)
• Using Mr. Poll or on-site polling for new threads (no)
• Allyson's idea in [link] (basically a thread to announce a proposal, dicuss it for a limited period of time, and then vote.) Then the decision would be final for 6 months to 1 year. (This still needs to be dealt with)
• Have a text or HTML list available of what is a closed decision

3. What is the scope of our community? ( is this possible to vote on?)

4. thread proliferation to be or not to be (see how we make decisions)

• will combining threads lead to more posting? (ex. TV threads combined)
• Do we need/want to combine threads?

5. Dealing with annoying people/trolls (which might just be solved by marcie)

• whiffle (seems like people are against)
• MARCIE (seems like people are for. Also I thought it was a sone deal)
• Firmer guildines for stompies and/or more power to stompies.

5a. Helping new users become acclimated:

• read only membership for a certain period of time to help people acclimate.
• forcing them to read the FAQ before psting? (I though we already asked them to read site rules?) (Do we need to vote on this?)
• linking to on-site rules before posting(Do we need to vote on this?)

Please note that we have an etiquette guide in both filk and non-filk formats already.

6. Other

• clearer place listing stompy feet.(Do we need to vote on this?)

---

I would like to formally fourth discussion on the war thread, if such a thread is still needed in a week. Because I do think voting is the best way to put discussion on this one to bed. I understand the precedent it sets, and I understand we can't revisit everything we ever decided. But at the same time, I didn't feel like a consensus was really reached on the War thread -- I felt like the nos got overwhelming, so the yesses shut up, and then the discussion kind of fizzled out. Which may be a good working definition of consensus, but I still would like to see the decision all wrapped up and tied with a bow.

---

I think a lot of the times, the reasons things start to feel nuts in this thread, is because someone posts in a way that seems to be "accusing" someone of something - whether it's railroading or (in essence) *making* someone leave, or *making* someone sick to their stomach, or frustrating someone. A lot of times, there are conversations that are just sort of detailed. Then someone comes in and characterizes the conversation as an argument, or at least implies it.

And you'd characterize the discussion prior to my post as having been a detailed and rational discussion? Because I wouldn't. Nor would the person who stomped off with an e-mail saying "Don't agree with the new guvmint."

So in the service of not starting an argument, we shouldn't name it an argument? An argument by any other name is just as arguey.

Then lo and behond an argument does break out. It feels like an unfair appeal to emotion.

So we should leave how we feel out of how we post?

Actually I don't have a problem with emotion in my discussions because... well I just don't. I've seen some of the best debates and speeches made about things that people feel about. So I think appealling to the emotional is not an unfair thing to do because the emotional side of who we are is part of who we are.

Additionally, most discussions are appeals to the emotional. If you say to me, "Stop discusssing X because it's the Yoko Effect all over" are you not appealling to my emotional attachment to the board and the community to get me to comply? Don't you want to use the guilt I might feel to get me to do what you've suggested?

I'm sorry that my mentioning the way I've felt about this discussion has pinged you. But I do think it's significant that people who read and post are leaving. I may not be in agreement with the stompy, huffy slamming of the door as they go (and at least the poster in question didn't make a Big Thing about taking a break or whatever), but I do think it's significant. As signficant when Hec asks people to slow down and think about the effect of their words on people who get frustrated with this discussion.

Edited to add:

I'm also not really expecting a response to my emotion. I'm pissed. Well okay. That's where I am. I don't expect or anticipate that people will stop talking. I just want to be clear about where I am and the effect that it has on me. Cause that's all I can speak to at the moment - not the fun theoretical, but the actual for me.

Sliding into silence now because late for school and to regain Laura-posting equilibrium.

---

I felt like the nos got overwhelming, so the yesses shut up,

Well, I was one of the people listed as a "Yes" in the original discussion, and I shut up because while I had started out tentatively supporting it, I ended up being quite strongly opposed. So I shut up because I was happy with the consensus I thought we'd reached.

---

Kat - sorry, I rethought what I wrote over breakfast and decided to delete it. I deleted, came back, and you'd responded.

You're right. I have now restored the post, but only so you wouldn't look nuts. I put emotion into my posts too. Sorry. I think I shouldn't post anymore until after I eat.

---

I think with or without having discussed the voting procedure we still would have had a long, heated discussion regarding a war thread. The people that wanted it this time around I don't think would have stopped discussing until they GOT a war thread or left. That's how the discussion for the movie thread happened. And the music one.

That is what I hoped would stop when we went to this (really simple-- we seem to be making it too hard) procedure.

Also, thank you Anne for the Nillying.

---

I think with or without having discussed the voting procedure we still would have had a long, heated discussion regarding a war thread.

I agree with this too. The voting procedure has nothing to do with this, except that it might be able to provide a platform from which to say "We already decided no."

Except I have little faith in that, because it seems we did already decide no, and we did already decide not to revisit previous decisions, but that doesn't seem to count. No one's explained clearly to me why they think it doesn't count, but I'm sure that's coming.

---

No one's explained clearly to me why they think it doesn't count, but I'm sure that's coming.

Not from me. I don't want to argue anymore.

---

Anyone who is in the minority tends to feel that the other side is a GangOf14/ActivePosters/SinisterCabal/FakeConsensus.

Uh, no.

I am at some pains to think "Damn, I lost" rather than "They're all bad." (I don't always manage this, but I do try.) In fact, one of the reasons I have become angry at this discussion is the tendency to refer to "unfairness" and "railroading" and "active posters".

Decent, reasonable people can disagree, vehemently. Courteous people can disagree vehemently without casting aspersions on their opponents' reasoning power.

---