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?
The wording of the final proposal is up to Aimee.
Aimee can change her proposal at any time, and can word the ballot however she wishes, editing right up until voting starts if she so chooses.
I don't see the point of such a compromise.
as I understand it, the person who put forth the proposition can amend it prior to posting the ballot based on what is said in here:
When the fourth full day of discussion is completed, the original proposer writes the text of the ballot. (Sophia Brooks) consensus) It is up to the proposer to write text which is not confusing, and which presents tenable choices to the voters. The proposer may want to read Light Bulb carefully, and accept suggestions from debaters, but the proposer makes the final decision of what will go on the ballot and how it will be phrased. The proposer sends the text of the ballot to Jon B., who creates the web ballot, and posts the ballot text in Press with a link to the web ballot (Sophia Brooks).
But, I'm still kinda new to all this, so I might be misunderstanding it. (I'm really wishing I had done student government as a kid to better prepare me for all of this).
If Aimee were to choose to offer a compromise, she wouldn't have to stick to 10,000. She could offer any number under that she wanted, if she wanted to offer it.
Again, I only threw it out as a suggestion, because it came to me this afternoon and I tend to dislike all-or-nothing choices when a compromise is feasible.
You know, I think justkim speaks some sense there. I know one of the reasons people aren't using Firefly at the moment is they don't want to use up the remaining posts - it does seem a bit strange to be having this debate so close to it's potential demise. If you picked a number like 1000, you'd get another year out of it.
