DX, I think what you could pull out right now is the phrase, "The lurkers agree with me!"

Ah the lurkers, a fickle bunch they are. They'll support you in their silence, and then stand by as you're torn asunder with nary a word in your favor. Put not your faith in lurkerdom for they have no faith in you.

It really would be funny if the whole "Buffistas who don't read the voting thread always vote 'yes'," thing were true...

Okay, maybe just to me...

It really would be funny if the whole "Buffistas who don't read the voting thread always vote 'yes'," thing were true...

Okay, maybe just to me...

No, not just to you...

FWIW, As the proposal was stated I would vote Yes. I don't think that asking people to register to be full participants is a big deal. I am registered with a large number of information and technical sites that I never post to, but still I am registered to have access. Not a biggee to me. I expected that the notion would be most unpopular here.

I have skimmed much of the discussion, but little of it deals with the actual proposal.

I don't think that asking people to register to be full participants is a big deal.

That's already the case. You have to register to post. "Read Only" != "Full Participant" IMO.

I understand that you have to be registered to post. I was thinking of the many sites that require registration to view. Granted, I really don't participate in any other boards like this; I am thinking of newspaper, magazine and technical sites I visit. Many require registration. As I said, it is no biggee for me either way since I register all over the place with my real name and everything!

Well, in our case, you have to register to keep track of stuff, because without a userID you don't have anything to keep your place for what you have and haven't read. Which is, you know, useful, and the first reason I can think of to register.

To clarify tort stuff, and because I like the word tort:

(1) I think it's a great idea that the proposer of a proposal be allowed to withdraw it before the voting period begins, for any reason and without censure or tongue-waggling. (Unless the proposer prefers we waggle our tongues at him.) If the proposer, I don't know, breaks a leg and gets stuck in a hospital with no internet access, or even just changes his mind, there should be the option for the proposer to hand-off advocacy duties to someone else (and stick to the original time-frame).

(2) Said proposal, never having been voted down, should not fall under the moratorium for voted-down things.

I like both of the above. I will put them into Bureaucracy if people would like to consense there about them. Please let us consense about them, because then I will be happy and able to put them into my little Buffista Law document.

(Unless the proposer prefers we waggle our tongues at him.)

Any time...

It may be redundant (in my case at least), but I love my sister.