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.

I honestly don't have a preference over which way we do the voting. I'm sure that's not helpful. I'll go with whatever is decided.

(Loves Kat. In a platonic "DAMN she's smart" sense, of course.)

I honestly don't have a preference over which way we do the voting. I'm sure that's not helpful. I'll go with whatever is decided.

But it is helpful, askye. Because it sort of confirms my belief that outside of a handful of us, most people don't care particularly much.

Even those of us who have been decided as going down on one side or the other (myself included) have waffled.

Going back for evidence:

I recommended a runoff many posts ago. Jon said PV was the answer. In fact, Jon says,

I'm not going to be a pusher for Prffmmmg again. I'm not. But could someone explain to me why a runoff would be better than doing it in one swoop? I really want to know! And don't just say "It's complicated." Three options. Ask people to vote for their runoff choice in advance, should their first choice get the least number of votes. I do not accept that that is complicated.

which seems to say, "oh... if you think it's complicated and the complicatedness is bad, don't say that's the reason cause it's not valid."

I disagreed and said my first of many peaces, but also implied that I didn't really give a shit at this point. (See previous post for that breakdown of the discussion).

Burrell then posts with:

At this point, the path of least resistance is to have 3 numbers on the ballot (3, 4, and 6) and have an immediate run-off in case there is no majority. Y'all can keep duking it out, but this seems like the simplest path to me.

which seems to be a go with a runoff.

To which Betsy agrees with:

I like Burrell's suggestion a lot. Put up 3, 4, and 6 and let them fight it out.

which seems to be another in agreement for a runoff if necessary.

then Wolfram agrees with:

Let's put up 6, 4 and 3, and if in the extremely unlikely event that 6 doesn't get 51% of the vote, then we fight out what to do.

Jesse then says:

If the 3 and 4 people can't come to an agreement, I propose we do an old-fashioned runoff. Have 6, 4, and 3 on the first ballot, if nothing gets 50%+1, vote again for the top two. It's not like this is so urgent it can't wait a few more days.

t deletia for space considerations

Brenda half jokingly says, straight ballot but put the PV on just to test what may happen should we have a runoff. Jesse then states her gunshyness. Wolfram says, okay, PV just this once. Lyra Jane says the same. Jesse then says, okay fine. As do many others.

So it seems, askye, you aren't alone in really not caring. I think many of us feel either ambiguously or just plain tired of discussing it.

Thanks for the love Plei. I'm not feeling particularly smart. In fact, if I were smart, I wouldn't have re-read 460 some posts to support the assertion that my reaction is not a radical interpretation of the text. Just a textual interpretation of one.

Sophia, I'm sorry that you're feeling like you can't discuss PV and that you don't want to post the ballot because you are worried that you are going to piss people off. I'm also sorry that my unwillingness to capitulate is driving everyone bonkers. But I'm not sure there is a compromise because either doing things with PV or doing things with a simple ballot and a possible runoff seem to be dichotomous.

Post the ballot and vote. I certainly won't speak for Plei or ita, but my objections, though a big deal to me, aren't a big deal to the community. It's not as if I haven't been on the wrong side of the fight before and I'm sure it won't be the last time.

But I posted because I wanted to be very clear that I have serious objections because folks were saying that there was a lack of those and I'd like to be on record.

Kat, if it's any consolation to you, I think your interpretation of the text is correct. I don't believe it was intended, and I do believe a good portion of it was frustration and confusion. Because, for someone who does get it, not getting it just doesn't make sense. I've noticed that a lot of us also come to the support of people we care about who aren't posting, or aren't posting loud and often, and I can see doing it -- I do it a lot, so of course it makes sense to me, but to someone with a different kind of brain, it doesn't seem to compute.

I don't care about PV. I'm perfectly willing to try it, though, if anyone recalls, I was against it when it first came up in bureacracy. That was many thousands of posts ago.

I don't care if we try it because it seems very important to some buffistae.

I don't want it because it seems very important not to do it to some buffistae.

I worry about too many changes too fast. I worry about frustration should a runoff have to occur more than onceto get the results of one vote sometime in the future.

So, I think I've absorbed all the reasons for and against, and I don't have an answer. I just don't. I don't think we can know the ramifications -- just like we didn't foresee not being able to come to consensus in the proper number of days when we voted to shut this thread down at midnight on the 4th day. That's why I'm willing to try it, though not at the risk of offending people I care about.

As Jon notes, what would've been considered a Buffista consensus was reached about trying the preferential voting.

Um, no. We have folks today running ramrod over folks who posted yesterday. Thanks, Kat, for recapping yesterday's discussion for a run-off seeing as it was convienently forgotten today. Because I was surprised that Jon could say I was not clearly for a run-off rather than preferential voting when my memory said that I explicitly suggested a run-off.

Right now, I am so frustrated and annoyed at the whole voting process that I really should haul myself away. I feel like my voice has been mischaracterized and misrepresented by others who had a vested interest in marginalizing it. I think it's ridiculous that I need to plant my ass in Bureaucracy and Voting 24/7 if I want to avoid this in future.

I like PV, because it just seems to me like the more-elegant and –time-effective version of runoff-- I can't comprehend why runoff is any more compelling to other people. I mean, unless I'm really, really not getting something (which, you know, is, er, possible!), they're not that dissimilar, are they? One just happens instantly. The other doesn't.

So... I'm strongly on the side of PV, but if it goes that way, I'll walk the runoff way (I mean, we WILL have a runoff, right? That's not the issue here, right?) without flinging myself around or pulling out hair or threatening to hold my breath until my face turns blue.

This is just to state my position.

I don't see why a run-off would be anything other than an immediate vote, no further discussion needed.