They don't. Trust the Buffistas to have the minimum amount of good sense to decide which decisions can be re-discussed, and which are eternal.
Why?
We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die.
Mal ,'Serenity'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
Allyson - May 16, 2003 12:02:26 pm PDT #1981 of 10005
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
Nutty - May 16, 2003 12:05:22 pm PDT #1982 of 10005
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
If eternal yammering really is the true price of freedom, and if we can yammer long enough to render the grandfather clause proposal moot, then should we quietly sort of pretend we consensed over it? Like quietly allowing old men to keep their rent control until they die? Not like, with all the thread realignment I'm foreseeing, anything else (except emergencies) can get voted on in the next, oh, month.
Betsy, as proposer, I guess I'm sort of asking you whether you'd feel OK withdrawing Grandfather as almost unnecessary, so Allyson may proceed. Or anyway, I think I'm under the impression that it's almost unnecessary, so correct me if I'm wrong. What do you think?
Betsy HP - May 16, 2003 12:08:53 pm PDT #1983 of 10005
If I only had a brain...
Put it up in Discussion, and I'll withdraw it if we agree it's unnecessary. I'm uncomfortable unilaterally withdrawing it, because part of my impulse to withdraw is that I'm sick of the whole damned thing.
Cindy - May 16, 2003 12:09:10 pm PDT #1984 of 10005
Nobody
Suggestion - we hold the grandfather proposal like a big stick.
If someone challenges a decision that would fall under it, before the six months expires, then discussing and voting on it gets priority above that challenge. If not, yeah, what Nutty said about consensing around it, sounds good. Although, I am not going to argue against Betsy if she still wants to go with it, because she's already waited so long. FWIW, I don't think we need the complete list before we vote on Betsy's and I have no problems with how she originally worded it.
xpost with Betsy. Her post made me decide to withdraw this suggestion.
Wolfram - May 16, 2003 12:10:45 pm PDT #1985 of 10005
Visilurking
They don't. Trust the Buffistas to have the minimum amount of good sense to decide which decisions can be re-discussed, and which are eternal.
Why?
Because the alternative is another long and torturous series of endless kibbitzing and quibbling to define the rules and framework of, among other things, what is up for re-discussion and what isn't, what falls under the moratorium and what doesn't, and whether the original moratorium vote included ordinarily non-re-discussable elements or not.
In other words, trust the Buffistas to avoid all the things you say you hated about this thread.
§ ita § - May 16, 2003 12:10:53 pm PDT #1986 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Betsy, Lightbulbs is open for you.
Allyson - May 16, 2003 12:19:29 pm PDT #1987 of 10005
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
In other words, trust the Buffistas to avoid all the things you say you hated about this thread.
Wolfram, I don't trust that. Because it keeps happening. Immortaliz(s)ation? Dude. You can't stop.
Backing away before my ish becomes my war.
100 people decide for 900. I'm thinking it's a problem, but I'm working within the confines of it, because there seems no way around it. It's the elephant in the corner of every decision by vote. The illusion of consensus.
Wolfram - May 16, 2003 12:25:21 pm PDT #1988 of 10005
Visilurking
Wolfram, I don't trust that. Because it keeps happening. Immortaliz(s)ation? Dude. You can't stop.
Don't take everything so seriously, Allyson. It was a simple spelling question, and it's what we do here.
Are you saying you don't trust the Buffistas or are you saying you don't trust me? Because if it's the latter, well at least you can trust the Buffistas to keep me in check. Or haven't you been paying attention?
Nutty - May 16, 2003 12:35:19 pm PDT #1989 of 10005
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
Allyson, I can see you're feeling pessimistic generally. FWIW, we do yammer eternally, and I think the willingness to yammer is a sign that we're, you know, not going off the deep end into Weirdoland. Sure, 100 seem always to decide for 900, but the 900 do have the opportunity to decide; they just choose not to vote.
I mean, the lurkers could organize and stage a lurky protest and vote No on everything that gets voted on, until we were a muddle of failed proposals and recrimination, but, ummmm, why bother? (Also, how would the lurkers organize? Hey, that's kind of a neat question!)
I keep my hand in, and therefore have faith that it will mostly all work out in a way I can live with. The more hands kept in, the more people can live with the results, the less of a need for panic mode.
Cindy - May 16, 2003 12:38:33 pm PDT #1990 of 10005
Nobody
The more hands kept in, the more people can live with the results, the less of a need for panic mode.
I'm just concerned that when there's too much yammering, that also causes not only panic, but bad feelings that we didn't get when we just talked rather than voted.
I don't think voting is a bad method of counting who talked pro and who talked con. I think we're taking it really (way too) seriously though, and it's hurting us.