Making rules to chuck them if they become inconvenient (just IMAGINE that discussion) seems unwise.
But making rules that are unchuckable is wiser?
I'm sorry. You were going to ask me to choose, right? Did you want to finish?
Zoe ,'War Stories'
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!
§ ita § - Apr 18, 2003 5:44:10 pm PDT #970 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Burrell - Apr 18, 2003 5:45:35 pm PDT #971 of 10289
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!
Moved from B:
I'm concerned about what "we need to cut out the discussions" means.
I'm not against discussion per se, but I do think that discussion becomes a problem when it's about picking at sores, nursing wounds, flying off the handle, etc. At some point, endless discussion makes the problem worse, not better.
Allyson - Apr 18, 2003 5:52:33 pm PDT #972 of 10289
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
I've seen planned attacks. They are very, very, obvious.
Michele T. - Apr 18, 2003 6:12:18 pm PDT #973 of 10289
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
Absolutely, Allyson - I think it's wise to have something about them in the rules now, though, so there's no agita over a new rule when they happen.
Michele T. - Apr 18, 2003 6:12:42 pm PDT #974 of 10289
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
Also, I'm not a Charlotte, I'm a Miranda, so there.
Consuela - Apr 18, 2003 6:18:12 pm PDT #975 of 10289
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
I trust that a community member would stop being annoying and/or apologize in thread if they have offended others. I trust that 10 of my fellow Buffistas will not call for a warning unless it is warranted. I trust that a member who will in time become a valued member of this community would respond immediately in a positive fashion to a warning.
Because I think it bears repeating.
scrappy - Apr 18, 2003 6:35:28 pm PDT #976 of 10289
Nobody
I am also not concerned because I not only trust that 10 Buffistas wouldn't gang up in a nefarious or whimsical way, but I also trust that if 10 people suddenly formed an anti-Scrappy cabal, that other Buffstas would leap to my defense.
brenda m - Apr 18, 2003 6:39:01 pm PDT #977 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
I am also not concerned because I not only trust that 10 Buffistas wouldn't gang up in a nefarious or whimsical way, but I also trust that if 10 people suddenly formed an anti-Scrappy cabal, that other Buffstas would leap to my defense.
Which I think brings us back to the point Trudy's concerned about - that there is no provision as it stands for the defense. I'm not sure whether I think we need it or not, but I see what Trudy means. Michele's suggestion of a stompy veto might be the least complicated method of dealing with this, but possibly there's another option I'm not thinking of?
Laura - Apr 18, 2003 6:41:05 pm PDT #978 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
If it is a concern to some then a stompy veto is a good option.
Elena - Apr 18, 2003 6:42:27 pm PDT #979 of 10289
Thanks for all the fish.
If we were to ever have a situation where 10 (really, 11, because there has to be an initial complainant) people decide to gang up on another poster this is would a very different community than it is - and that would be of very great concern to me.