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.

But, ND, would you like it if the board made rules like "sock puppets need to put their real name in their profile" (which I think is a GREAT idea, and lets us have SPs without the secrecy squick) without polling everyone? Voting is basically just a way for everyone to have a say in the decision. It's not some traumatic big deal--I think of it as closer to a poll on LJ.

We need to clarify exactly what is a community decision.

feel to make a proposal about it when this one is through.

Personally, I think this issue can be solved by people exercising their right to use the block feature. I don't think any new language needs to go up at all. And if that is what the original proposer thinks too (Betsy HP), then she can withdrawl the proposal.

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.

I was happier with the consensus. It seemed like there was an agreement to address the issue through etiquette rather than policy and procedures. I think etiquette changes can be done by consensus, whereas policy requires a vote. Etiquette violations (if consistent and abusive) can trigger disciplinary action in themselves, but only as a pattern of behavior. Why isn't that sufficient for the dealing with multiple board identities? It gives us the leeway to let it slide when it's obviously a joke, and gives us a way to address the issue if it's being abused. And it's not voting on every issue. It seemed like the best and healthiest solution.

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.

It has? Figuring out a change in policy has required a vote, unless there is a clear consensus. Codifying that consensus into language - not the same thing. We made a number of changes to the FAQ last year that didn't require a single vote. If everyone is on the same page - why go through the aggravation. It's like drafting by committee.