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.
Simon: The decision saved your life. Zoe: Won't happen again, sir. Mal: Good. And thanks. I'm grateful. Zoe: It was my pleasure, sir.
'Out Of Gas'
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
bicyclops - Mar 21, 2003 7:25:51 am PST #8603 of 10001
Betsy HP - Mar 21, 2003 7:26:52 am PST #8604 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
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.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 7:30:00 am PST #8605 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
I THINK people think it doesn't count becuase it wasn't actually voted on, just sort of taken as a given.
I think that when changing over we shouldn't have to vote on minutea (sp). Did we vote on whether to use Mr. Poll or In-House? No- we made a logical decision and I think we stilll can.
The only reason I favored opening a war thread discussion was to avoid the last 200 posts. Everyone could have just voted no. Once Betsy made her proposal about the closing of past discussions and Anne planned on Nillying them, I think we should just stop discussing the war thread, see what happens with the LAST TWO Procedural Proposals. regardless of anything else, logic dictates waiting because we really should have the last 2 nails in the procedure before moving on to a vote.
And I am sorry if I come off all procedure loving-- I do think procedure has it's place. I was tired of trying to figure out whether or not the consensus we had was consensused enough to do something.
Betsy HP - Mar 21, 2003 7:35:39 am PST #8606 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
If we're going to adhere to procedure, then a point of order (whether or not reconsidering a decision is appropriate) should actually be considered before the question it applies to (do we need a war thread)?
The reason "Do we reconsider?" is ahead of "War thread?" in the queue is that it got four seconds more quickly than War Thread. I do believe that it is appropriate to handle the procedural question first in any case, but that's not why it got precedence.
amyth - Mar 21, 2003 7:35:55 am PST #8607 of 10001
And none of us deserving the cruelty or the grace -- Leonard Cohen
Decent, reasonable people can disagree, vehemently. Courteous people can disagree vehemently without casting aspersions on their opponents' reasoning power.
With very few exceptions, I've found Buffistas on the whole to be wonderful examples of this.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 7:37:37 am PST #8608 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Betsy-- I agree with you. I am not sure if that is clear from above. That was just my personal reason for stopping my thought that we SHOULD consider the war thread discussion.
candyb - Mar 21, 2003 7:41:14 am PST #8609 of 10001
Is the "do We consider re-voting on past decisions adopted under old Buffista System" discussion/vote next after the current "how long until a proposal can be brought up again"?
Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 7:44:20 am PST #8610 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Yes, candy.
candyb - Mar 21, 2003 7:46:52 am PST #8611 of 10001
Good, thanks.
DavidS - Mar 21, 2003 7:55:17 am PST #8612 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Again, it seems fair to decide whether we are going to reconsider issues that were decided under the consensus system before we actually go back and do that.
I also thought it was fair to use whatever moratorium time we decide on to apply to issues recently decided upon under consensus.
Let me restate something I said earlier in the Do We Vote discussion: Just because we are voting on certain issues now does not mean we are abandoning consenus. I will amend that to note that just because we are voting now does not mean consensus didn't work. ita gave plenty of examples of how we used it to achieve quite a lot.
The reason consensus worked is because folks weren't wed to the idea of getting their way but in making decisions which worked for the most people. You can be sure that deciding to have the F2F on Los Angeles made it impossible for a number of people to attend. But it also made it possible for a lot of people to go who couldn't have gone otherwise. Nobody pitched a tantrum. There was just another agreement to alternate the event from coast to coast (or in the middle) so that other people could have the geographic advantage eventually.
It's about a commitment to fairness, and also wanting what's best for the community. That's not so hard to keep in mind.
Anne, thank you for doing the summary.