I'd be most comfortable with voting as a formality, but I'm good with skipping it if everyone else is.
Spike: You pissed in the Big Man's Chair? That's fantastic! Gunn: Spike, can you please turn off that warm fuzzy? Spike: What, the Lorne thing? Worn off. I just think that's bloody fabulous.
'Life of the Party'
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!
Lyra Jane - Apr 13, 2005 3:43:39 pm PDT #5352 of 10289
Up with the sun
Betsy HP - Apr 13, 2005 3:43:58 pm PDT #5353 of 10289
If I only had a brain...
And, no, I don't think a vote is necessary here. Does anybody?
Connie Neil - Apr 13, 2005 3:46:44 pm PDT #5354 of 10289
brillig
Second the consensus isntead of voting.
Cashmere - Apr 13, 2005 3:47:25 pm PDT #5355 of 10289
Now tagless for your comfort.
I'd rather skip the voting, if it's possible.
§ ita § - Apr 13, 2005 3:49:49 pm PDT #5356 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
My thought is that an unIDed SP goes into the same warning queue as we already have in place.
One not-actually-invested comment on the consistent demon-like behaviour.
If posting as a SP is rude (read demon-like), then every time an SP posts, they're being rude, which is automatically consistent demon-like behaviour.
Given that Jessica clearly accepts the initial premise of rudeness, her deriviation seems sound to me.
Jessica - Apr 13, 2005 3:50:18 pm PDT #5357 of 10289
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
[screw it. not worth it.]
I'm fine with not voting.
JohnSweden - Apr 13, 2005 3:53:50 pm PDT #5358 of 10289
I can't even.
I would like to point out though, that no one had suggested banning or even warning anyone, so discussion of the "demon-like behavior" was not really fitting.
Interesting position from the someone who posted the rules, including the demon-like behaviour piece. Discussion ensued, it happens.
not that I'd suggest legislating a set formula for how to express one's attempts at humor, but let's not act like anyone was gonna get thrown off the board or that the elimination of sockpuppets would remove all hopes at humor.
Well, in fact, if someone who wasn't here for this discussion (say), chose not to obey the new potentially consensed rule about posting in their profile, they could get thrown off the board, couldn't they?
I'm fine with the profile thing, I haven't and I'm not ever going to sockpuppet anyway but I strongly disagree with over-regulation of fun, and will heartlessly kill countless electrons who never hurt anyone, in that cause.
msbelle - Apr 13, 2005 3:54:30 pm PDT #5359 of 10289
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb
I did not mean it wasn't fit to discuss. I meant JSW bringing it up as if we were discussing banning people was not an accurate reading of the proposal.
Perhaps I did miss someone actually suggesting that we ban the sockpuppeteers, if so I apologize for mis-speaking.
does anyone know where the language is for the steps on voting and the steps on banning? are the votes recorded anywhere so we can see the language?
Deena - Apr 13, 2005 3:55:17 pm PDT #5360 of 10289
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara
I'm consensed.
§ ita § - Apr 13, 2005 3:56:35 pm PDT #5361 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Is that the cheesebutt document, msbelle? If not, I'm pretty sure it was on someone's to do list, but I have no idea if it got done.