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.

An alternate proposal:

• We propose only a 6 month moratorium with a promise to take a vote of confidence on it (only and specifically) in three months.

• People vote yes or no on the 6 month moratorium, with the gut-check on moratorium length at 3 months.

• We ask only those who voted no on 6 months, to register whether or not they want a shorter or longer moratorium.

If the 6 months gets a 50% + 1 vote majority, finding an acceptable shorter number and a method of counting it is a moot point.

If 50%+1 people think we need a different-length moratorium, we proceed from there, letting the "no" votes and the number of votes we did get in favor of 6 months, inform the choices we put on that ballot.

Signed,

Someone who thinks 6 months is too long, but still thinks this unwillingness to give is more wrong, and recognizes that six is probably going to win, so doesn't understand why we're making this so difficult (not in the mathy way, in the emotional way), and who, if she were an "I told you so type person" would remind everyone this is why I thought "most votes" should beat out "majority", but I'm not so I won't.

Wow cindy-- you just sort of posted what I was trying to say in Bureaucracy.

I think the reason for the voting system was because people felt that the consensus thing wasn't working too well. We need to recognize that there are situations where consensus will work, and others where it is just causing a lot of fighiting and bad feelings. I'm going to propose a rule of thumb:

If consensus isn't working, let's turn to voting.

For a perfect example of the breakdown of consenus see the voting thread for the PV/runoff discussion. That's why I moved that we vote on the PV/runoff issue, to get a firm decision on it without all the rancor. Many people felt that we shouldn't vote on it until we tried it, but others feel that we shouldn't try it at all. So I ask again that somebody provide the final second and we queue this issue before people get too insane.

I'm not looking to create a backlog of issues for discussion. In fact, in a previous post I suggested putting the PV/runoff issue on the moratorium ballot with a minimum of discussion, even though that's technically not the way we do things. Can we get a consensus to bend the rules and get this issue out of the way?

I was reading the posts from last night in posting, and I see why the ballot never got posted. I also made a previous suggestion to post the ballot without PV and if one doesn't get a clear majority we'll fight it out after the fact. The ballot shouldn't be delayed. Let's post the ballot by 12:00 noon without the PV option, and (if we can get a consensus on this) let's put the PV/runoff option as a separate question on this ballot, or otherwise let's queue it for discussion as the next issue (pushing ahead of moratorium on old issues discussion).

See also same post in B'cy.