We have folks today running ramrod over folks who posted yesterday.

I got the feeling that there were objections to doing the preferential ballot, and I asked that the ballot be put aside despite the deadline.

I don't really know how we can both craft the ballot and discuss the issue in here. We don't want to have a vote to determine the vote.

Do we need to define what a consensus is? Would that be any different than voting to decide the ballot itself? Going back through the thread and counting opinions is just an unofficial kind of voting and subject to the exact complaints that a handful of people in Bureaucracy were determining policy.

The way Buffista consensus worked before was by momentum. Which turned out to be problematic to some people because if you weren't around when things gathered steam you were out of luck and felt unrepresented. Nonetheless, that's how it was done because it was the only way to move things forward and avoid this kind of stasis.

It seems preferable to me to try things out. It seems closer to the spirit of avoiding votes on voting, and layers of protocol. There was a willingness (not just in this particular discussion) to give preferential voting at least one airing to prove it's ease of use and tallying. The burden seems to be on the folks that want PV to show that it is easy.

Aside from that, the only times we've made headway on any of these issues have been when people have dialed down the rhetoric, stepped away when they were frustrated, did not characterize disagreements in opinion as personal attacks, did not look to take offense, operated on the presumption that people were working for the common good and not their personal agenda, and simply agreeing to move forward on things provisionally.

I don't care whether we do preferential voting or a runoff. But I can guarantee that assigning or imputing motive to somebody else's statements will derail this discussion.

I got the feeling that there were objections to doing the preferential ballot, and asked that the ballot be put aside despite the deadline.

I don't think they asked that it be put aside. I think Sophia didn't feel comfortable posting it when people's feelings were so hurt.

I agree with you though that I don't think anyone had the intention of running over anyone who disagreed.

I don't think they asked that it be put aside.

No, but I suggested we wait on the vote until all sides were heard. That's all I'm saying.

and I've now edited my previous post so that is more clear.

Cool. I just want to be careful of us accusing each other of things. But I see what you meant now.

whole post got eaten after I hit "post" wuwt?

Over the weekend, I proposed averaging between options of 3,4,5, and 6 months. Someone correctly pointed out that this would pretty much rule out 3 and 6 from the get-go.

New proposal:

We offer choices of 2,3,4,5,6, and 7. We take the mean, the average (with rounding up or down to the nearest whole number anything under .5 gets rounded down; from .5 up, we round up) of people's choices. If the number is a higher number (5, 6, or 7) we hold a vote of confidence on the moratorium period, come 3 months from now, to see if we still think it's reasonable.

You know how we did averaging for MVT? I voted for a very low (whatever it was) option for MVT. Still? I was THRILLED with the result (42) because although it didn't represent mememe and my will, it did represent ususus and OUR WILL, and that's what is important.

I wasn't strictly for trying preferential voting just this once as much as I was against me talking more. Now I've talked, dammit.

By the way - I'm not married to the above.

I just don't want to see us pull ourselves apart over this, which is why I had shut up in the first place. So I'm hoping I've proposed something that feels fair and simple to us all.

Anyone?

I think, and this is just my impression, that people would rather the actual time period they want or others want, rather than one that no one suggested. I can't say why exactly I think that 5 may be a less valid choice than the others. Probably because I'm tired. And going to bed.

My argument for runoffs rather than preferential voting is that in the runoff you know which two you're choosing between. However, in practice I personally don't give a damn.

Who's counting this vote? Their opinion seems to carry weight here. I also think that perhaps we should go ahead and vote, at noon, or if we can't make that, midnight tonight, between 3,4, and 6, and if one gets 50%+1, it won't matter anymore.

This post brought to you by major doses of Let's Get This Over With and I Can Only Take So Much Talking.

What's your reasoning sounds like "you are WRONG, Fucker! Justify your piss-ass self!"

If I'm at a party, and a man is shouting, "I'M AGAINST IT! I'M AGAINST IT! I'M AGAINST IT!", it seems like the only two polite reactions are to either calmly ask him why or to ignore him. Maybe that's just me.

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.

First, we're grown-ups here. Not only that, we're Buffistas. No one is going to think someone is stupid because they don't understand something. Second, if you can't be bothered to even read the proposed ballot, which contains what I think is a very short clear explanation of the so-called "vagaries", then I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair for you to chime in with an opinion on it.

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

It's not that they're not valid. Here's the thing. I'll let you in on my nefarious secret plans. Earlier upthread, Kat wrote, "I proposed just voting and having a runoff if necessary because it seems to bother fewer people." My theory is that almost everyone against trying it "just this once" is against it because they perceive that others are against it and don't want to upset them. If those people could be shown that there are only a couple of people against it for it's own sake, then they might change their minds.

if that doesn't happen, and this is just too sore a spot for people we love and care about, we can just let PV drop for awhile? I hate to say that, because I know it's a sore spot for those who like it, too

But that's just it, Deena. Why is the default action to drop it when there are also people who will get upset if we do? I showed above that there were many more people who were willing to try it. I went to bed angry last night because it seemed like we were making decisions based on who screamed the loudest last. Just the thing we were trying to avoid with this voting process.

Finally, Burrell, I apologize for mischaracterizing your opinion, but I did include you as a "no" in my final 15 to 4 summary.