Kaylee: H-how did you... g-get on...? Early: Strains the mind a bit, don't it? You think you're all alone. Maybe I come down the chimney, Kaylee. Bring presents to the good girls and boys.

'Objects In Space'


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!


Beverly - Apr 20, 2008 11:18:22 pm PDT #8644 of 10289
Days shrink and grow cold, sunlight through leaves is my song. Winter is long.

And forcing everyone else to use only general, non-narrow topic threads is just as fragmenting and unhealthy to the community.

as making creation of threads somewhat tiresome and difficult is fragmenting and unhealthy, you mean? Again, no provocation intended. I'm honestly trying to understand your position.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt above, by the way. I asked clumsily, but my question was sincere. I'll try to restate it. As I understand you, you believe thread creation (in general. I expect you recognize the application of what you're asking *for the gaming thread* would be made to all threads proposed in the future) should be a simpler process. You disagreed when I guessed you were suggesting that any member should be able to create a thread on any topic at any time, whether there was other interest or traffic in that topic or not. But you haven't outlined what you do believe would be a fair and simple process, one that would work for this board and its members.

Would you have any controls on what threads are created? If so, who could create threads, and on what topics? Would every board member be given a number of thread creation opportunities, possibly in exchange for paying annual dues to keep the board running, or would there be no such limit? Would we want anyone to oversee the creation process, if we don't allow at-will creation? By oversee I mean deny creation of a thread for which a similar one already exists, suggest in what folder a thread should go so it can more easily be found, and monitor threads that have had no activity for a certain period and might be ready for closure. Would we expect volunteers to staff that position, or would we want to hire someone in that capacity, given that the thread load will increase by a lot?

What would happen if obstructionists like me back off and simply stop arguing and objecting? What sort of narrow-focus threads do you expect to be created, and how many of them? Are you saying this is what you'd like to see? And do you believe this system would be more pleasant and better than what we have now? Honest questions, I'm not arguing, I want to understand your position, to think it through and decide where it has merit and how we might implement it, if enough people agree that the process needs to change.

From my perspective, I do expect discussion and justification for thread creation, even if I don't *enjoy* the discussion. I believe the process should take effort and commitment, and creation of a new thread should be won. It has more value, I think, if it's won. But I could be wrong. I'm often wrong. This wouldn't be the first time.

I really hope I've asked my questions in a non-provocative, non-inflammatory way. I sincerely want to hear what you envision as the right way for the board to create, maintain, and run threads. I want to study your ideas and see if there are some points of compromise, where we can both have a board that works for us. I think we may need a compromise.


Trudy Booth - Apr 20, 2008 11:47:05 pm PDT #8645 of 10289
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart

From my perspective, I do expect discussion and justification for thread creation, even if I don't *enjoy* the discussion. I believe the process should take effort and commitment, and creation of a new thread should be won. It has more value, I think, if it's won. But I could be wrong. I'm often wrong. This wouldn't be the first time.

I think making changes should be doable and difficult. It's a good way to govern.

It's a pain in the ass that its hard, but its a good pain.


omnis_audis - Apr 20, 2008 11:49:12 pm PDT #8646 of 10289
omnis, pursue. That's an order from a shy woman who can use M-16. - Shir

points up at ND's post and nods. Yup. That's me. Well, except the finding the love of my life. Still searching for that. If she's a Buffista, sweet!


billytea - Apr 20, 2008 11:53:58 pm PDT #8647 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

It's a pain in the ass that its hard, but its a good pain.

Oh lord, did you really just say that?


Cass - Apr 20, 2008 11:56:03 pm PDT #8648 of 10289
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.

If you were ever at all interested to talk gaming with me, I WANT TO! But *I* need a cordoned off space on the board to do it.
And, if I am ever going to be involved in the conversation, it can't be in a separate space. It's not that I won't want to be there, I just don't have the time. I skip in most of the threads that I actually consider myself active in already.

We have the Suck feature and I use it. I grab the thread, vanity search to look for anything brought to my attention (thus enabling conversations in a fast-moving thread) or addressed to me, read the last however many posts I have time for and then jump into the talk or wait until the waters suit me better.

Splitting the gaming (because this is the topic currently) conversation off from some of the main threads means that I will never see it. And currently? Yes, I might miss it. But I might catch it and get caught up in a fascinating conversation I hadn't planned or expected.

It's not ideal, no. But I don't prefer the alternative. And I am just one vote.


billytea - Apr 20, 2008 11:58:31 pm PDT #8649 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

We have the Suck feature and I use it.

Oh lord, did you really just say that?


Trudy Booth - Apr 21, 2008 12:01:09 am PDT #8650 of 10289
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart

Oh lord, did you really just say that?

Are you suggesting different phrasing? Perhapse we should try it the other way?


billytea - Apr 21, 2008 12:04:50 am PDT #8651 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Are you suggesting different phrasing? Perhapse we should try it the other way?

Let's put it to a vote!


Cass - Apr 21, 2008 12:06:33 am PDT #8652 of 10289
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.

Oh lord, did you really just say that?
It's a time-saving device. Sometimes girls use those. It's just easier.


Trudy Booth - Apr 21, 2008 12:08:44 am PDT #8653 of 10289
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart

Let's put it to a vote!

And risk PREGNANC?!?!?!?