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.
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.
I go with 3 months and 6 months.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, possibly to be added to the ballot:
- Language about "extraordinary circumstances"
- Does this apply to issues that are raised but don't get enough seconds? What should the time frame there be?
- Is there a time limit for people to get their seconds?
