Wash: You want a slinky dress? I can buy you a slinky dress. Captain, can I have money for a slinky dress? Jayne: I'll chip in. Zoe: I can hurt you.

'Shindig'


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!


Daisy Jane - Apr 14, 2003 8:22:33 pm PDT #706 of 10289
"This bar smells like kerosene and stripper tears."

You're getting footprints on them Steph! Besides, you shouldn't be standing. You should be resting.


msbelle - Apr 14, 2003 8:23:52 pm PDT #707 of 10289
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

get offa my pants!

Heather, would you be against the time period thing even if it was worded as 6 months or 2 months? I tend to draft things in a yes/no set-up, but time period could be a choice. ONLY a choice of 2 things though - do not get me started.


Steph L. - Apr 14, 2003 8:24:42 pm PDT #708 of 10289
Unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe

I am lying on my stomach. But I am not lying about being in favor of the proposal. (Man, that was cheesy.)

What IS the next step, after we vote on this proposal? Do we vote on a length of time for the warning to be in effect? Or do we draft the wording of the Official Warning?


msbelle - Apr 14, 2003 8:29:01 pm PDT #709 of 10289
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

drafting of the official warning should be going on at the same time as this discussion. It should not be voted on IMO, but should be agreeable to the stompies.

Next step would be one person put up a proposal about time of warnings and procedure from warning to suspension (unless I include those on this ballot also) - everyone else start requesting people to be warned.


Daisy Jane - Apr 14, 2003 8:39:20 pm PDT #710 of 10289
"This bar smells like kerosene and stripper tears."

I'm against adding it because...well maybe it's moot now that there doesn't seem to be much of an argument about the 1st proposal. I just didn't want arguments about the time issue getting caught up in arguments about the procedure.


Laura - Apr 14, 2003 8:40:47 pm PDT #711 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.

I think that what we decided was that the original proposer can modify the proposal. That way things brought up in here can get in, but we don't have to try to get the group to agree on how to word it.

Yes, this.

I put the latest version of wording of an official warning about the 2nd post of this discussion.

I would like to see as much as possible concerning the warning, suspension, banning process covered as quickly as possible. Hopefully finalizing these procedures will lead to more peace and harmony.


Typo Boy - Apr 14, 2003 9:03:13 pm PDT #712 of 10289
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.

The only reason I worry about someone being mobbed, is that boards can change really fast as people sign up. I would hate to see 10 people sign up and start giving warnings. I have seen boards invaded by groups of trolls, some of whom are not obvious - mostly I admit in usenet days. I would just like some sort of precaution in there - maybe a majority of stompies could have veto power if it seem really silly or obviously trollish or something. I just don't like any group of ten people being able to send a warning without nothing to stop. I don't think that is abstract. Or as I said, you have in addition to 10 "yes's" get more yes's than strong "nos". In this context a "I think you are overreacting" would not count as a strong no. A "no" would only be a "This is totally unfair." or "There is absolutely no justification". What harm in having some sort of precaution? I gather the stompies don't want the responsiblity of a veto power - so let's have something. Does not havet be either of my suggestions, but something.


askye - Apr 14, 2003 9:10:04 pm PDT #713 of 10289
Thrive to spite them

I only worry is if we do that we'll be stuck in this turmoil where someone won't feel comfortable giving any kind of warning, and it will bog down.

If we're really worried about 10 people railroading someone out I'd rather have harsh consequences for doing that than weakning the system to make complaints.


Kat - Apr 14, 2003 10:07:54 pm PDT #714 of 10289
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

Okay, while lounging at Burrell's place, I had another thought. How do we know when something qualifies as one of the 10? I'm not being dense. I'm actually serious.

What gets my goat lots of the time are the comments like, "Well I find X annoying and irritiating, but I don't know if I think that warrants a warning."

Well, okay. But what are you saying. Warn? Not Warn?

The reason I bring it up is because I see people doing the Defense of Someone with the preface, "I don't like them either."


Hil R. - Apr 14, 2003 10:09:58 pm PDT #715 of 10289
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l

I'd say that for something to count, it should have to be prefaced with something like, "Count this as one toward warning," or something like that.