maybe the vote should include a "doesn't matter either way" type of choice. I am curious how many don't care either way. Of course, if that gets the most votes, then what do we do?
There is a system for this, most votes include "no preference" but there is yet another fun difference of opinion at b.org about if the "no preference" vote helps. I'm in the camp that would rather see people who don't care, not vote. If not enough people vote then we don't meet a quorum and the issue is sent back into discussion. If we do a "no preference" that can bump the quorum up to the minimum even if 35 votes are "no preference" and 4 are no and 3 are yes. The 4 no's win. The reason I'm in the camp that doesn't like this is that this in turn tables the discussion for 6 months. If a vote doesn't meet a quorum then it can immediately go back into discussion and be proposed in an altered form.
my god. I had no idea there were such detailed rules. Is there any filibuster provisions?
The infamous "cheesebutt" document runs down the voting process: [link]
I should clear something up - I was in no way suggesting upthread the Buffy/Angel topics should actually be closed. As with omnis_audis, I was just using it as an example.
And to give credit where credit is due, the original Phoenix boarders worked their asses off to craft these rules, and I believe that they're one of the main reasons b.org isn't like "those other boards" out in internet-land.
I agree KT, and the fact that this board is as it is is what makes it great. Huge applause to them. Even if FF is let run out, I'm not gonna leave in a huff. I've grown to love the board and it's peoples. (Grammar Police, please, these aren't the words you are looking for ::Jedi two finger wave:: )
Now reading the Law-speak, and I have to say, I think this is the first time I have truly seen "42" the answer to a question. I am *DYING* over here. LOVE IT. Also, very much agree the last item on the voting checklist "Everybody takes a nap."
I'm curious as to why no compromise has been suggested. It seems that at least part of the angst is being caused by the fact that closing the topic/not opening a new thread has been proposed with less than 100 posts to go.
Whether a person agrees with the reasoning or not, there are people who are attached to the thread. What is being proposed is essentially ripping off the band aid/unravelling the beloved sweater with no real warning. Sometimes people want to be prepared for the things that will hurt.
What if a the thread were continued for one last stand, 10,000 posts guaranteed, and at the end of that thread, the topic would be closed permanantly. That would give the users time to do a watch-and-post, arrange an on-line Shingdig/wake, etc. Give them time to organize and grieve and move on in one form or another.
The infamous "cheesebutt" document runs down the voting process: [link]
Is that link found on any big page? I couldn't seem to find it in the FAQ or anywhere.
I think that's a brilliant idea, justkim. Could the vote be edited the day before or would the quorum have to fail and a new vote be opened in order to consider this option?
At an average of 1000 posts a year, isn't that a 10 year extension on the thread?
