Travers: Perhaps you'll favor us with a demonstration while we're here. Buffy: You mean, like, right now? 'Cause, already had my recommended daily dose of fights tonight.

'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!


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.


Sophia Brooks - Mar 21, 2003 6:32:32 am PST #123 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

I would also like to point out that we don't have to sustain a discussion for 4 days. We can just be quite for 4 of them, and let people who had some days off read through the (small) discussion.


Lyra Jane - Mar 21, 2003 6:56:53 am PST #124 of 10289
Up with the sun

I like three months. Six is a very long time. I only got married six months ago. Four might be best, though -- an issue would only come up three tmes a year, but it's not an eternity.

And yes, there should be an "extraordinary circumstances" clause in the final language voted on.


Jesse - Mar 21, 2003 7:58:52 am PST #125 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Are we even gonna be able to sustain four whole days of discussion on 3 or 6?

God willing, the thread will be fairly quiet for the last couple of days, giving people a chance to catch up.

Six months! It is the only right answer (henceforth, the Jesse approach).

Snerk.

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.

In order to making voting as simple as possible, Sophia suggested that we try to come to an agreement around two choices. She proposed 3 months, 6 months, a year. As far as I can see from people's responses here, everyone thinks a year is too long. A few people think 4 months is optimal -- do those people care enough to agitate for it as a choice? If not, I think we're pretty well set with choosing between 3 and 6 months. Remember, people, nothing HAS to be revisited.