Tara ,'Get It Done'
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!
The suggested "rule" or "suggestion" is not saying people can't make or attempt at making jokes.
Actually as it stands now, the suggestion is for wording to be added somewhere that requests that anyone having multiple log-ins identify themselves either in their tag or profile.
I'm kinda in both camps. I hate to see us start voting all the time. However, if this goes to vote, I want to make sure that all the options are on the table.
We start taking every little issue to a vote.
Every little issue that gets a proposal and 4 seconds. Given how averse people often seem to be to making proposals, I don't think we're gonna be swamped with votable isssues.
Boone is John's Lockepuppet.
With 1600 registered ID's on this board, getting 4 seconds is not a huge hurdle.
Any time you want to add language about policy or procedures on the board - then I THINK it needs to go to vote.
and I think that because of the wording on the proposal that passed
A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that we should create a voting system for community decisions that do not require immediate action.
Exemptions: Thread naming, disciplinary action against trolls (although the process itself could come up for a vote at some point) and tasks currently performed by Stompy Feet, including but not limited to board maintenance.
Sophia Brooks "Sunnydale Press" Feb 25, 2003 11:55:53 pm PST
I'd rather not see a vote at all. I'd like to see a trend of issues in LB not having to be voted on all the time. Voting to me seems like a last resort - a necessary evil. Like the kids couldn't settle it themselves on the playground and had to get the teacher to sort it out. It kills me that we seemed to have a real consensus from both sides of this issue, yet folks still want to vote on it just because we can.
Every little issue that gets a proposal and 4 seconds. Given how averse people often seem to be to making proposals, I don't think we're gonna be swamped with votable isssues.
I said I was shutting up, didn't I? And yet... I think though, when we're making rules because someone has been offended by a non-abusive action, it's a little scarier. I realize "scarier" is way too overblown and serious a word for this discussion. I can't come up with a different word. It just feels like we're taking it too seriously, when not one sock puppet or Sang Sacre name has been used to abuse any of us. Some of us simply don't like it (and every once in a while, I pitch my tent with the people who don't enjoy it).
Mieskie/Schmoker/Anathema was exhibiting troll-like behavior. An actual troll isn't going to care about our points of etiquette, and what's in the faq. A true troll is going to ignore it, find a way around it, or rules-lawyer us to death. And we've already got a rule to deal with troll-like behavior.
Any time you want to add language about policy or procedures on the board - then I THINK it needs to go to vote.
It seems that this is not clear though. We may need to take a look at this and actually clarify exactly what is intended. "community decisions" is pretty wide open. Things like changing putting "buffista" branded items up in a cafepress store are community decisions, and I don't want to see us voting on those.
We need to clarify exactly what is a community decision.
but Wolfram, we had a consensus that involved adding language about policy to the board - THAT in all previous occurances has been something we vote on. Just because the people who are choosing to be vocal are in agreement does not mean that we just ignore the agreed upon procedures of the board.