Stop that right now! I can hear the smacking!

Giles ,'Never Leave Me'


Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job

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: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura

Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina


Lee - May 11, 2008 7:04:03 am PDT #2818 of 6786
The feeling you get when your brain finally lets your heart get in its pants.

I could start the Why Teppy Sucks thread!

(sorry, couldn't resist)


Stephanie - May 11, 2008 7:10:30 am PDT #2819 of 6786
Trust my rage

WRT raising the number required to pass. I know we have over 1500 registered users but many of them don't seem to post much. I'd be curious to know how many people vote. Is there a general number or does it vary widely. Because say the vote is generally somewhere around 100. We could raise to "required to pass" number to 50, or 70, or whatever we all feel is right. That would require more agreement before a new thread is created.


Jon B. - May 11, 2008 7:11:10 am PDT #2820 of 6786
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!

I think I am okay with preferential voting now.

Who are you and what did you do with Kat?!

1) There is a demonstrated interest in such a thread; 2) A genuine attempt has been made to have the proposed type discussion in an existing thread, unless incontrovertible proof is offered that such attempt would be futile; 3) Thread has some relation to the overall theme or purpose of the board; and 4) Creation of the thread will not do irreparable harm to some other active thread on the board or to the board in general.

I appreciate the effort to come up with a new threshold for thread creation, but all of these conditions seem awfully subjective to me. They are the sorts of subjective questions that already get asked and discussed in Lightbulbs. So I'm not sure how adopting these conditions will change anything.


Stephanie - May 11, 2008 7:12:32 am PDT #2821 of 6786
Trust my rage

I guess, like Jon, the quoted conditions seem to objective which is why my mind went to a numbers place.


Jesse - May 11, 2008 7:19:50 am PDT #2822 of 6786
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

I'd be curious to know how many people vote. Is there a general number or does it vary widely.

I just went back through Press announcements and the number of votes cast in some past votes (there should be a separate word for this) were: 65, 77, 93, 92, 59, 69, 49.


-t - May 11, 2008 7:24:31 am PDT #2823 of 6786
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration

I did a quick scan of the past 10 votes (which appears to be all of them since April 2007) and the average number of votes cast was 72.5, max of 93 and min of 49.


Stephanie - May 11, 2008 7:25:01 am PDT #2824 of 6786
Trust my rage

It does seem to vary quite a bit. I wonder if we can assume that in the lower total votes, people just didn't care enough to vote? I guess even though the number varies a fair amount, I'd be inclined to select (through a vote, I suppose) a new "minimum required to pass" number.


Steph L. - May 11, 2008 7:34:21 am PDT #2825 of 6786
I look more rad than Lutheranism

I could start the Why Teppy Sucks thread!

Note: never let Perkins be a thread czar.


omnis_audis - May 11, 2008 7:39:41 am PDT #2826 of 6786
omnis, pursue. That's an order from a shy woman who can use M-16. - Shir

This is purely out of curiosity. And I realize it sounds a bit "big brother"ly. It's been raised a few times of "we have x number of members but only y number post on a regular basis". Is there a way Stompies could look at stats of some sort? Sort the member list by visits and posts? I say visits too for those that merely lurk. No clue if it's possible to look at those stats if they aren't somehow already built into the profile to collect. But an idea. Again, out of curiosity. But those figures could help set a bar for voting. Say 10%.?.?


Sophia Brooks - May 11, 2008 7:48:39 am PDT #2827 of 6786
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

I don't know if this is overstepping the bounds of anonymity, but from counting votes, there are hardly ever names I do not recognize as either current posters, people who used to post, or people who donated back in the day when we first built this board.