The problem with those two statements is that your "clear and obvious" doesn't equal someone else's "clear and obvious".

Yes. This.

Also this:

I tend to think of the greater community good. The Buffistas were here before I got here, and they'll probably still be here if I decide leave. Having said that, in this thread I've sensed a proprietary attitude toward this community that I find disquieting. I want it so I should have it" shouldn't be a valid defense when this many people are involved, because we are a we. We need purposes, benefits, pros and cons. Will it break the site? Will it bring in trolls? Will it really hurt for people to skip war discussion in natter like Hecubus-in-a-dirndl skips cat talk?

If a significant portion of Buffistas wanted something, it usually happened. If a significant portion did not, then it didn't. That was how it was done in the past, and it seemed to work well enough from my naïve perspective. I guess I was another Buffista who didn't realize we had a lot of members who weren't in favor of the process that was in place.

And this:

It seems like tere are 2 things voting could help, and they are things that I and I thing other people were irritated with/frustrated with-- closed discussion and clear decision. And the other stuff really doesn't matter.

Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.

And Sophia, I'm really sorry that since you took on the role of proposer that so much of the bullshit has seemed like it was centering on you.

I am interested in seeing what the community wants and acting on it. That's all.

This is the prize on which we must affix our eyes. Really. Buffistas, together, WILL make the best decision. Really.

Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.

And Sophia, I'm really sorry that since you took on the role of proposer that so much of the bullshit has seemed like it was centering on you.

I agree. Sophia, since your idea got the requisite seconds, how about you finalize a ballot of your choosing? We vote it up or down on its own merits and end this gridlock.

I'd like to see 6 months go up for a vote and see what people think of that. I like the 3 month gut check in case it passes.

However, somehow we have moved the endless circular discussion to crafting a ballot.

Sophia is wise.

Perhaps we don't discuss crafting the ballot-- perhaps the proposer crafts the ballot and if we don't like it, we say no.

Yes, I like this. I think the proposer may be thoughtful enough to take into account the comments of others, such that the initally proposed ballot and the final, voting ballot may differ in wording or method somewhat, but that the onus of all this should be on the proposer, since presumably the proposer has a stake in the vote going forth to a conclusion.

If we the voters think the ballot is sucky, we vote with our non-votes.

So to speak.

Except I am really unable to post much this morning until after 2 pm (I just got out of a meeting and am going to another one).

I also just realized that I posted the proposal to get us OUT of a circular discussion, which is why it was pretty nebulous!

Anyhoo. I like Cindy's proposal re: 6 months.

I'm so confused. Is the ballot that's linked to in Press actually counting something? Because, as it turns out, you can use it to vote for your first choice twice, which seems to not be the point of an instant run-off.

I am also in favor of the proposer crafting the ballot, and being able to accept or reject changes as he/she sees fit.

I was unaware that there was a link to a ballot in Press. If it is my post, it is a typo!

I linked the proposed ballot - so people could see what it looks like. I SPECIFIED it's a PROPOSED one. If people aren't reading the post before clicking the link they should be shot.

Okay, maybe not shot. Spanked?

edited to clarify...

The above was an attempt at being funny with a fake-overreaction. Feedback indicates it bombed, horribly. I am sorry. Didn't mean to upset anyone, and didn't mean to offend. I'd edit it out, but I don't want to make folks look crazy.

Cindy, I read the post, and I think you're being a bit harsh in your tone, there.

The ballot does not currently stop you from voting for the same thing twice. If you can do that, there's no point to the runoff, is there? That was my point. Please chill.