I just think you're freakin' out 'cause you have to fight someone prettier than you.

Dawn ,'The Killer In Me'


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!


Sue - Apr 14, 2005 3:17:14 am PDT #5415 of 10289
hip deep in pie

I don't feel comfortable to coming to a bullshit consensus on something that was originally proposed to be voted on. Especially in this thread, which I usually avoid. I only came in to see what it the original proposal had morphed into from Bureau.


Jesse - Apr 14, 2005 3:41:48 am PDT #5416 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

There's no reason why the hypothetical Malicious Sockpuppet couldn't vote.

And I'm quite certain that I can speak unequivocally for all 500+ of us when I say HELLS YEAH we can be bought.

Hmm....the only problem with that is we don't have SO MUCH money in the bank that I could pay off hundreds of people and still keep the board open. I could rule over nothing, or go along with you people here. HMMMM.


DebetEsse - Apr 14, 2005 3:46:15 am PDT #5417 of 10289
Woe to the fucking wicked.

I'd think a covert (and, yes, probably malicious) sockpuppet would be more likely to vote, and I doubt people who are covertly (maliciously) sockpuppeting will be dissuaded by...well, much of anything.


brenda m - Apr 14, 2005 3:47:28 am PDT #5418 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

I think we're okay there. The original proposal was this:

Formal proposal: Add to Buffista etiquette the following: "One account per customer. Please don't set up multiple accounts under different names.

The fact that, through discussion, we seem to have come up with a solution that is more workable and less restrictive I think is a good thing, and I don't see that we have to vote for the sake of carrying on. That said, Betsy could certainly amend the proposal to reflect the new idea. But the 'consensus' we've currently reached works for me as it stands.

Reality-check, though: It *seems to me* like the people who posted strong issues with sockpuppets were okay with the idea of identification in the profile. Is that a true read of the situation? In the interest of making sure we're all on the same page, I'd like to see people weigh in specifically on that question, rather than feelings about sock puppetry in general.


Jesse - Apr 14, 2005 3:52:43 am PDT #5419 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

I am fine with (a) taking no Official Action against multiple log-ins in general; (b) strongly encouraging people who create jokey sock puppets to identify themselves in the profile of said sock puppet; and (c) generally discouraging the use of same. Then we just keep on keeping on with people not being assholes.


Hil R. - Apr 14, 2005 3:55:57 am PDT #5420 of 10289
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l

I am fine with (a) taking no Official Action against multiple log-ins in general; (b) strongly encouraging people who create jokey sock puppets to identify themselves in the profile of said sock puppet; and (c) generally discouraging the use of same. Then we just keep on keeping on with people not being assholes.

I'm with Jesse on this.


Fred Pete - Apr 14, 2005 3:56:46 am PDT #5421 of 10289
Ann, that's a ferret.

Can sockpuppets vote?

The couple times I've counted votes, sockpuppets didn't vote. If the question officially comes up, put me in the "one person, one vote" and not the "one ID, one vote" category.

Personally, I enjoy the occasional sockpuppet coming in to lighten things up. (Disclaimer: I've only recently started subscribing to Bitches, so I don't know the history with March.) But I have no quarrel with Wolfram's suggestion of requiring a sockpuppet's profile to include the person's "regular" ID. If people want to go further, maybe require including the word "sockpuppet" in the tagline.

As to whether we need a vote -- IMO, this is a consensable issue, defining what "demon-like behavior" is. But I don't think 6 hours is enough time to be sure we have a consensus when emotions are as strong as some that were displayed yesterday.

(ETA: X-posted with Jesse and Hil. I'm fine with Jesse's proposal.)


§ ita § - Apr 14, 2005 4:01:34 am PDT #5422 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I don't see any reason we need to vote as a result of opening the thread, but if any decisions are to be made as a result of the discussion, the discussion has to run until midnight of the fourth day of discussion. Which means we're barely started.

People can stop talking, if they'd like, but the forum for discussion remains open.

That's not a thing.


Burrell - Apr 14, 2005 4:05:15 am PDT #5423 of 10289
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!

I believe that those who have created alternate addresses did not intend to offend.

With the exception of Anathema/Mieskie, I'd say.

And um, I'd weigh in on the consensed proposal, except I am not at all clear on what it is. People keep saying that it is to identify the puppeteer in the profile, but is there more to it than that?


Nora Deirdre - Apr 14, 2005 4:09:20 am PDT #5424 of 10289
I’m responsible for my own happiness? I can’t even be responsible for my own breakfast! (Bojack Horseman)

One vote per IP address (or however that stuff is tracked) wouldn't work because we do have multiple-Buffista households.

Ooh, yes, that's correct.