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?
I absolutely think the closed discussion time limit should apply to unseconded proposals. Otherwise, people are going to be re-proposing endlessly until the only reason people second is to get it voted and done with, and that's a waste of everyone's time.
I think 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time to wait for 4 seconds.
Honestly, when I read it, my gut reaction was to post something completely rude.
Please don't! That way lies rancor and madness. We are sane and fluffy Buffistas. Nutty says so.
I absolutely think the closed discussion time limit should apply to unseconded proposals. Otherwise, people are going to be re-proposing endlessly until the only reason people second is to get it voted and done with, and that's a waste of everyone's time.
I don't know as how this is actually part of what we're going to be voting on, but I do tend to think that, as a practice, people will begin to second proposals that will obviously lose a vote, just to be able to apply the waiting period. A couple of the seconders in the War Thread discussion in Bureaucracy have indicated this is their strategy. IOW, unless it's a totally insane person trying to propose, I think this part of the process will fix itself and not need legislation.
But it only works if you choose 6 months! Imagine voting on Nutty Cheese Butt every 3 months!!
Six is a perfect number. Literally. Ask any math major.
Not 9?
[nevermind, I'm an idiot and not thinking mathily enough. different "perfect." carry on.]
OK, how 'bout this. Does 12 mos. have any supporters out there, as either the kill-time or as a ballot option?
Does 12 mos. have any supporters out there, as either the kill-time or as a ballot option?
I haven't seen anybody push for 12 months yet.
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.
Voting up on those numbers is no different than voting for Gore, because although you wanted Ralph Nader, you didn't think he stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning. People can do what they want with their vote.
I am asking the people who keep suggesting we add 4 months as an option, to consider dropping that request.
You don't have to do what I am asking, but I am still asking. I'm asking it because there's not a huge difference between 3 months and 4 months. I would hate to see our ballot become more complex over this. Nothing guarantees an item will be revisited at all. This is just the waiting period before it can be revisited (barring extraordinary circumstance).
Can we please just agree putting 3 and 6 up for a vote? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Not mine, heaven knows that bird's flown the coop, but I'm sure there's one lying around here somewhere.
