We're in love. We're ... lovers. We're lesbian, gay-type lovers.

Willow ,'Potential'


Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!  

We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!


brenda m - Mar 21, 2003 12:01:14 am PST #113 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

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.


brenda m - Mar 21, 2003 12:02:42 am PST #114 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

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


Deena - Mar 21, 2003 12:02:49 am PST #115 of 10289
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara

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.


DavidS - Mar 21, 2003 12:04:00 am PST #116 of 10289
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

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.


Noumenon - Mar 21, 2003 12:09:09 am PST #117 of 10289
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti

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.


Deena - Mar 21, 2003 12:11:18 am PST #118 of 10289
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara

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.


Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 12:45:33 am PST #119 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

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.


P.M. Marc - Mar 21, 2003 1:19:00 am PST #120 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear

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?

Nah, I'd snarl at him, too.

No one is exempt.


candyb - Mar 21, 2003 5:32:31 am PST #121 of 10289

I go with 3 months and 6 months.


Jon B. - Mar 21, 2003 5:35:21 am PST #122 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!

I would like to point out that the purpose of this thread is to discuss the current issue about to be voting on (i.e. 3, 6, or 12 months), and nothing else. Thank you.