So...um... do I go ahead and post the link to the ballow tonight or not? Cause I really don't care if we do it this way or in a run off if need be.
Spike: At least give me Wesley's office since he's gone. Angel: He's not gone. He's on a leave of absence. Spike: Yeah, right. Boo-hoo. Thought he killed his bloody father. Try staking your mother when she's coming on to you! Harmony: Well…that explains a lot.
'Destiny'
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!
Sophia Brooks - Mar 24, 2003 9:13:19 pm PST #414 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Jon B. - Mar 24, 2003 9:19:22 pm PST #415 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
ita - do you have a reason?
Kat - Mar 24, 2003 9:21:15 pm PST #416 of 10289
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
So, Jon, do our reasons need to past muster before they are recognized as legitimate?
'Cause saying "What's your reason?" seems to imply that unless we can satisfy YOUR criteria as a legitimate reason then.... it doesn't matter?
edited for homonym issue
DavidS - Mar 24, 2003 9:21:18 pm PST #417 of 10289
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
I'm against "just this once" on general principle.
Well, I'm against princples right now. I'm big on Trial and Error and giving us room to make the mistakes and also to take stuff out of theoretical and apply it practically. Because I think half the craziness comes from trying to anticipate all the eventualities beforehand, when it's no Big Fucking Deal to try one thing and then either discard it or build on it.
Hil R. - Mar 24, 2003 9:25:16 pm PST #418 of 10289
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
I'm with Hec on this one.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 24, 2003 9:28:38 pm PST #419 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
I think right now we're back to this dog eating it's own tail thing that is bound to drive me crazy. There seems to be a fundamental communication gap where people who want to try preferential voting think that if they explain it enough, peple who are against it will like it. Meanwhile, the people who are against it get more and more agianst it the more it is explained, becuase they feel like no one is listening.
Again, I don't know how to come up with a compromise. I would think that a run-off would be one.
Anyway, I am supposed to post this thing in 30 minutes and I feel really uncomfortable doing so.
Laura - Mar 24, 2003 9:29:25 pm PST #420 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
I feel really quite wrong in saying anything since I missed the last thousand or so posts. So feel free to ignore me.
I have no objection to PV (I actually kinda like it a lot), but apparently serious objection exists, so I have to object to trying it just this once.
eta: being without news or internet for a few days makes me think being a beach bum is not such a bad deal.
askye - Mar 24, 2003 9:29:47 pm PST #421 of 10289
Thrive to spite them
I don't think anyone needs to justify their choices.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 24, 2003 9:33:42 pm PST #422 of 10289
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
No one needs to justify their choices, but either we have to agree never ever to talk about preferential voting again or people are going to have to have some sort of dialog wherein a compromise can be reached. No compromise can be reached with 2 sets of people just stating their opinion.
In my original proposal I wanted 2 choices precisely for this reason. We spent more time talking about HOW to vote than talking about what we are voting on. I can't really even do an argument summary for this one because I can't see much dialog about 6 versus 3 versus 4. The mechanics of the ballot are not the most imprtant thing here.
DavidS - Mar 24, 2003 9:34:46 pm PST #423 of 10289
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
'Cause saying "What's your reason?" seems to imply that unless we can satisfy YOUR criteria as a legitimate reason than.... it doesn't matter?
Woof. Radical interpretation of the text. What's your reasoning seems like a fair way of asking how you're thinking about it.