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.

I agree with Jess PMoon.

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.

Nope, me either. So we can maybe take that one off the table and proceed with narrowing down the options. So far I've seen 3, 4, 6, and 9 suggested. Three and six were originally up there, and seem to have the most support.

So how 'bout this: does anyone object to three and six as the ballot options? Speak up, and maybe we can get the question hammered out.

Preferential Ballot!!!!

t /ducks