I expect to be over-ruled when it comes to voting. I'm a grown-up, I can cope. I will have voted and had my say, that is sufficient.

As far as I can see, those two things were considered.

No, they weren't. A proposal was made, quad-seconded, and the thread was opened. Even if you argue the affectation of the proposal is a Consideration of the first thing - which I would argue is not and rather an indication that five people considered whether a vote was necessary - the second thing was certainly not considered and apparently can't be under our current rules.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. That once a thing is "considered" I should stop expressing my opinion about it?

Has to? Has to? Please do not presume how I intend to vote.

I have no horse in this race at all, but in the interest of smoothing feathers, I think what was meant that the person thinks it is silly that we have to vote at all, not that we each feel that we need to vote yes because of external pressure.

Thank you, Sophia.

Quick cameo to say that I don't think saying we support the writers in any way implies that we don't support the crews. I think once we decide if we want to show our support for the WGA, we can certainly consider a separate proposal saying that we also support the crews and such.

ETA: A kind of "Bring everyone back to work" or something. Not sure. But I agree with the spirit of ND's desire to support beyond the writers; I just don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

No, they weren't

I considered it. I viewed the ongoing discussion on the topic as consideration. How are you defining the term?

I just don't see your logical fallacy. Could you dumb it down a bit for me?

By the way, the idea of putting the logo where the random quotes is? A great idea.

But we need the random quotes.

But we need the random quotes.

For what?

Okay, we are going to do away with them permanently?

That really kind of sucks.

I just like them.

Why not put the link above the "Message Center" title.