A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Right now, I'm against it.
One felt it necessary to change her ID after one of her posts was quoted elsewhere by a lurker, identifying her as the person who runs a specific web site.
I don't see how the proposal would help with this, even if we restrict every single thread.
Another was stalked by two people, who then made threats to the admins regarding her posts, and the posts of her friends on the board, which ultimately forced her to leave the board.
I would need to know more about how the two people even found out about the board before deciding if this is a good enough reason.
Earlier today, Zoe violated her banning. She has also begun to send e-mails to members of the community
What amych said. And how would the proposal help?
I'm generally against the proposal, because I don't think it will fix the problem we have. I will, however, second the proposal to get it to the voting stage, because I think it's a worthwhile thing to hash out and/or vote on.
I would need to know more about how the two people even found out about the board before deciding if this is a good enough reason.
If this is the situation I believe it to be, it was mentioned to her friends during normal conversations. When said poster began withdrawing from "friends" they lurked, and it went from there.
I am starting to go through WX Bureacracy to help Nutty with her cataloging of Buffista procedure. Because I can never remember, I did do up a Short Form of voting procedure to help us keep track of how manyseconds, etc.
Hopefully someone can help clean it up and we can post it somewhere quick, until we get the big project done?
Voting Procedure Short form
1. A Buffista makes a proposal in Bureacracy.
2. Four Buffistae are needed to second the proposal.
3. If/when that occurs, we need to do the following
- open up lightbulb thread
- post the proposal in the lightbulb thread
- announce the discussion in press with a link to the lightbulb thread.
4. Discuss for 4 days.
5. At the end of 4 days, the original proposer re-forms the proposal into a ballot, trying to do this in the most fair way. The proposer has final say over the ballot wording and voting procedure (ex. preferential voting). It may be helpful for those who don't like to read the long discussions for someone to volunteer to sum up the pro and con arguments. We need to:
- create a ballot (Jon B)
- get a volunteer to count votes
- announce voting in Press
- close the lightbulbs thread
5. Vote for 3 days.
6. Count the votes. The proposal must win a true majority (51% of the vote). 42 Buffistas must vote for the vote to be valid. The result is posted in Press.
7. There is then a 6 month moratorium on discussion/proposing of this item.
Like other people have said, I don't really see the point, but am happy to second the proposal to move it to Formal Discussion time.
Alright. That makes 4. I'm opening the thread. DX? Ready?
No, because I have to go to a meeting. Back in a bit.
I don't like the proposal, but I'll talk about why later.
Sophia, that looks like a very good, clear summation.
I've posted the announcement in Press and in Lightbulb. Could someone else check the Press announcement to make sure I got the dates right?
Lightbuld discussion starts here:
DXMachina "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" May 5, 2003 1:24:15 pm EDT
