Buffybot ,'Dirty Girls'
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
You're saying that the voting process was unfair because only the people who showed up and voted got a say in what happened.
Or do I have that wrong?
I'm trying to make sure I'm on the same wavelength as you.
You have that wrong, see my post here: Wolfram "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 21, 2003 12:56:20 pm EST
This is why I changed my mind last night after I left. I would like to ask (feel free to refuse) that you let it go for the rest of today at least, and then see how you feel about pressing forward.
Cindy, your post is about the merits or lack thereof of a war thread. I'm pushing for a vote on the thread under the new system. I don't feel that we're arguing the same thing.
I feel like a lot of people are getting ready to kill me (or themselves) over this (not you Cindy) so I'm going to propose a simple compromise. The war thread vote has got four seconds. Somebody please link me to a decision or consensus from before yesterday that all the old issues are under the moratorium. Then I'll shut up. Otherwise let's put it in the queue for discussion, and we can debate about the pros and cons of even having such a thread. I think it's a long shot to even win a vote on it but I'd like it to have that shot. Either way, we can stop the madness (and my melodrama).
Okay, so you're okay with the old system where the war thread was voted down.
But you want to bring up the war thread again as a separate thing even though it's been voted down and we've been talking about the war in Natter.
Otherwise let's put it in the queue for discussion, and we can debate about the pros and cons of even having such a thread.
But the proposal on whether the time limit applies to previous decisions got seconded first, and it logically should be decided first.
But you want to bring up the war thread again as a separate thing even though it's been voted down and we've been talking about the war in Natter.
Right askye. And the old system wasn't subject to the moratorium, and (arguing in the alternative) even if it was subject to the moratorium the fact that we're now at war creates a significant change in circumstance to bear a board wide discussion and vote on the issue of a separate thread. And it's gotten four seconds. That's it in a nutshell.
Can someone (Deena maybe?) Nilly the points in the discussion (some might be at WXing), where we said votes were for things going forward?
Can somebody Nilly to the place where somebody asked "Does this mean we're reconsidering all the old pre-vote decisions?" and the answer was "no"?
[Great minds, Cindy!]
If there's a place to discuss the war (Natter) then why create another?
And the old system wasn't subject to the moratorium
Right, but we are discussing grandfathering moratoriums over for recent decisions arrived at under consensus. That's a procedural and transitional issue that probably needs to be addressed, and would (possibly) resolve the war thread vote or any other revisiting vote issues.
Cindy. I can't. I have a good memory for black words on white. I can see the post, but I don't know how to nilly without the search function.
If you want, I can go back through bureacracy and find it... which should delay things until sometime next week. *g*.