Count me in with the 6ers. I've been wavering on this a bit, but looking at how painful and drawn out discussions seem to be getting, the very idea of opening something up again three months after it's shot down makes me cringe.

And really, how often do we make or need to make changes around here? Right now we've got a lot of stuff on the table, but even now it's mostly administrative stuff relating to the voting changes. If we hadn't gotten the movies thread, would it kill us to have to wait six months rather than three to try again? Even if you don't have a dedicated thread for a topic, bring it up in Natter. Bring it up in Bitches. Shoehorn it into every freaking post if you need to. It's not the end of the world, and the toll that these issues can take on the community is huge.

Are we really going with limited choices and a straight X number of months or 6 months on a ballot? Cause if we did, I skimmed it.

We're deciding what goes on the ballot. It could be a fill in the blank like the last one. Or we could make it either 3 or 6. Or 3 or 6 or a year.

Kat, I took the same strategy with seconds, incidentally. I thought five was good, but put in 7 to push the average up.

I thought five was good, but put in 7 to push the average up.

This bugs me, because, well, I didn't. And I'm not placing blame on anyone, 'cuz what you did worked (and, oddly, gave me the results I wanted, too. I think.) But I wonder what would have happened if people had answered honestly, instead of fudging? Because both of the people who've said something about it have fudged upwards, so it doesn't REALLY give us the average of what people wanted, it more like a combination of the average of what people wanted and what the thought other people wanted.

My head just exploded.

Gandalfe, I didn't care for your first banning comment, but in light of the post you were responding to, I understand why you felt provoked. The second one, coming after you had seen that that type of comment was upsetting to people, seemed deliberate.

You may not have meant to offend. But prefacing your post with a comment about getting banned for making it implies that actively stomping out dissent is the way this community operates. It doesn't, and suggesting it does is insulting for what it says about our ability to listen and relate to people of other viewpoints. You are also making this comment at a time when some of us are still bleeding from the shrapnel of a single banning, which was undertaken with great discussion and wringing of hands.

Noone's saying you can't say it. We are asking that you show a little sensitivity to the fact that people are upset and hurting on this issue, and to respect that.

I put in what I thought on both questions (seconds and MVT). One came out higher and one lower than I voted.

but, Gandalfe, it was what they chose to do, and perfectly legitimate.

I didn't do that, but I'm pretty glad now they did, frankly. Unless we vote in a recall system, I can't change my vote, but I think I would on some things.

This bugs me, because, well, I didn't. And I'm not placing blame on anyone, 'cuz what you did worked (and, oddly, gave me the results I wanted, too. I think.)

See? It's not about being right or voting your conscience. It's about trusting that the system will produce the proper results.

That's why we're all working so hard and working each other's nerves - to get that kind of process in place. One that we have a modicum of trust in.

what are we going to do if someone brings up one of the verboten subjects? Ban them? Have someone follow them around and monitor all of their posts?

I want to help with the chilling with text analysis and hypothetical situations.

That second rhetorical question about monitoring is good context for taking the first one unseriously. Rather than suggesting we're the kind of people who would ban for that, it treats the idea as silly, something way too strict that we would never do. If you try to imagine this post having John H's username attached to it, wouldn't it look more like devil's advocacy, and not offensive at all?

That was a logic-based approach to chilling, which isn't how it's done, but I thought I'd try to win people over to my view of Gandalfe's post, 'cause to me it was another of his good points made in a constructive fashion.

Sorry, sorry, on-topic. Three months is good for vote losers or vote switchers. Six months is good for vote winners. Vote winners already have it pretty good. Don't make the vote losers suffer through six months of the wrong wrong wrong! decision -- that's longer than any college semester where you had a bad roommate or took a bad class. Frustration feels like eternity. Give the vote losers something to look forward to. Three months.

Sorry, Nou -- it was the logic that killed me. I don't think I'd appreciate it no matter who posted it, but, I'm thinking if you're right (and you probably are) then it's because I tend to use the fluffy bunny hug it to death approach than the logic based one. Logic is so mathy.

6 months. So if we really want 6 months, then I want to see 9 months on the ballot so we end up with 6 months.

When I proposed I also Proposed that we narrow to 2 choices. We don't have to, but it would be hella easier. It seems like we can consense on 2 numbers

I wanted to second to be 4, so I voted for 1. I wanted the maximum voter turnout to be 25, so I voted for 40. In the second case, I misguessed the way people would vote.