Or, you know, what Sophia said.

Oh, well, if you want discipline, you really need 9 then. 9 is all about the discipline. I've heard 9 wears a little flat leather cap and carries a riding crop.

I agree with you too. I'm in the pref's fine by me, but so's runoff. So, y'know, whatever gets us through the night.

I am sorry that you had to make an uncomfortable decision, and glad that you take other people's concerns into account.

9 used to be my favorite number. She was going to go out with 8, but 7 was a manipulative little bitch about it.

Oh well, that's because 7 is a loner and doesn't like it when others might be happy. Obviously, I'm not the only one who can see their personalities so clearly.

Oh, well, if you want discipline, you really need 9 then. 9 is all about the discipline. I've heard 9 wears a little flat leather cap and carries a riding crop.

Pfft. 9's a petty official at Athens airport. Fancy uniform, but no one ever takes any notice of it. It's running around all over, barking orders, but everyone's still lighting up under the 'Smoking Prohibited' signs and failing to form orderly queues. And you know the others are all whispering 'square' behind its back.

Vote perfection. Vote discipline. Vote just a teeny touch of eeevil. Vote 6.

(this isn't considered natter, is it? I mean, we are still discussing the OTN, right?)

6ALONE4EVAH!!!1!!

Hey now, you leave my 9 alone!

I seriously thought about this when I was younger.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

Woof. Radical interpretation of the text. What's your reasoning seems like a fair way of asking how you're thinking about it.

That's why I asked it with a question mark and didn't make a statement.

But let me go back to the text for the viewing audience:

When I said why the entire thing gives me a mental wedgie, Jon replied with:

I'd like to hear from someone who doesn't like it for itself. Not for meta-reasons.

Which seems to say that the meta-reasons aren't valid.

Jon's next post:

If there are still people who don't get it, then I'll drop it. But I'd respectfully ask that you don't reply (not yet anyway) unless you are one of those people. Because then Kat's frustration above becomes a self-fulfilling reality and everyone gets frustrated.

Seems to imply that if we have objections that are based on things other than "not understanding" that we should shut the hell up, lest we get frustrated. Irrespective of whether or not we are already frustrated. Plus, not being so good with being asked not to reply.

Moreover, teaching hint, when you say, "Tell me you don't get it!" it's difficult for someone to say, "Wait, I don't get it." because then that person feels stupid for not having gotten it the other 8554 times. So if I didn't understand the vagaries of how it would be counted (and let's be honest, I skimmed it so I probably don't), I have a huge disincentive to fess up and say I don't get it.

In fact, This part:

Then the conversation got meta where more folks were saying that if people thought it was complicated, we should drop it, even though they themselves understood it.

is exactly the kind of huge disincentive to admitting you don't get it. Cause why say you think it's complicated when you'll feel stupid you do?

Irrespective, in the service of Getting Along, those of us who don't want to do it just should, right? (based on Wolfram saying

I honestly don't see why we can't just agree to give it a try with a simple 3, 4 or 6 month vote on the moratorium).

The big question is why have we assumed that three choices will automatically mean that no choice will get 50%+1? And, why is a runoff so scary to avoid. God forbid we take a few more days?

Why don't I want to do it Just This Once? Slippery slope.