Please...Wesley...why can't I stay?

Fred ,'A Hole in the World'


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!


Jesse - May 06, 2003 8:15:37 am PDT #1186 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

We were presented with conclusive evidence that Schmoker = Mieskie, and approached Schmoker about it via private email, rather than bringing the evidence immediately before the entire board. I still think it was the right thing to do.

Oh yeah. I agree with that, as long as y'all are comfortable with it.


Wolfram - May 06, 2003 8:17:10 am PDT #1187 of 10289
Visilurking

I'm concerned because our admin. aren't going to act on their own, and did catch flak when they handled Anathema behind the scenes.

Going back to the relevant portions of that discussion, one person posted that he/she was distressed by the backchannel handling, causing a stompie to post an official statement earlier then they intended. Then another poster stated he/she was also distressed by the non-public nature of the Anathema sitch. The overwhelming majority of the posters were extremely pleased by the handling the stompies did, and congratulated them on a tough job well done. And I think it's the truth. Let's not let 2 unhappy posters change the current system, because I think it worked very well in that situation.

Maybe this isn't what people are talking about, but my impression was that John had a personal problem with mieskie that he was addressing one on one, and the fact that he was an admin was secondary. Am I completely misrepresenting this?

John wasn't one of those two posters I just mentioned, and he kept his admin duties and personal problems separate. He had nothing to do with the flak that someone is talking about.


bitterchick - May 06, 2003 8:32:47 am PDT #1188 of 10289

I know some people had issues with the fact that the admins dealt with meiskie privately but I think that people are going to have to realize that as admins they are going to have private discussion about how to deal with situations.

I'm not remembering the situation this way. My only problem with the finale of the mieskie situation was that there was a conversation on this board about "backchannel" and "things" that were being done. It didn't even say what topic [mieskie] the conversation was about. Just that were backchannel admin things going on.

It made me feel very uncomfortable. So yes, people will need to understand that sometimes backchannel happens. People will also need to refrain from mentioning backchannel issues here unless they're ready to talk the whole thing out.


Jesse - May 06, 2003 8:34:47 am PDT #1189 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

John wasn't one of those two posters I just mentioned, and he kept his admin duties and personal problems separate. He had nothing to do with the flak that someone is talking about.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't remembering the whole story.

But again, none of this has to do with the actual proposal at hand.


Jon B. - May 06, 2003 8:41:59 am PDT #1190 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!

But again, none of this has to do with the actual proposal at hand

I mostly agree with you, but since the proposal has to do with making some threads more "private" * , I think this conversation is somewhat related and useful.

[*though I don't think the proposal will do that]


brenda m - May 06, 2003 9:57:49 am PDT #1191 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

My only problem with the finale of the mieskie situation was that there was a conversation on this board about "backchannel" and "things" that were being done. It didn't even say what topic [mieskie] the conversation was about. Just that were backchannel admin things going on.

I think I was one of the two that Wolfram mentions above, and this was exactly my issue. I had no problem with how the stompies handled things with MMMMMwhoever. Just "the first rule of backchannel blahblahblah."


Deena - May 06, 2003 10:59:42 am PDT #1192 of 10289
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara

So, is there a mechanism in place for a proposer to withdraw a proposal in the face of overwhelming opposition? or does it have to go to a vote if it's gotten its seconds and been discussed?


Lyra Jane - May 06, 2003 11:04:17 am PDT #1193 of 10289
Up with the sun

So, is there a mechanism in place for a proposer to withdraw a proposal in the face of overwhelming opposition? or does it have to go to a vote if it's gotten its seconds and been discussed?

I think the latter. The whole point of voting was making sure decisions weren't made just by whoever was in the thread -- if we only move to a vote on things we like, we really haven't changed anything.

But I would guess the final decision is DX's?


Jesse - May 06, 2003 11:05:25 am PDT #1194 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Yeah, we don't know what everyone thinks. It should just go to vote.


§ ita § - May 06, 2003 11:06:01 am PDT #1195 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

if we only move to a vote on things we like, we really haven't changed anything

I agree with your final point -- if DX doesn't want to go all the way with his proposal (since it's up to him to craft it precisely), there's no reason to go any further.

It's not a "we" thing, so much.