Sophia, I'd rather have a small team of advocates make community decisions on behalf of the community. I'm really very clear on what the criteria for that group should be, but posting it? I've already lost enough status on Zoe.

Also, in WX Bureau we talked about sending our 9/11 posts to the Smithsonian. Did we ever do that?

Interestingly, I agree with you Allyson, although we would probably disagree about who. I would so much rather we didn't have to think about things and could just post about Buffy and natter and Movies and whatever else. The opposition to that idea was so strong by both posters and Stompies that I don't think it would ever fly, although that is completely the way to do it so that we don't have endless circular discussions. However, I think others are less irritated by them than I am. That was the whole reason I pushed for voteing, specifically to get a faux-concensus that would enable us to stop talkng about Bureacracy.

Did we ever decide upon whether we would trash the voting if say, voter turnout was so consistently low, we'd have to concede that we had moved to an advocacy based decision making process?

Well, minimum voter turnout is the closest we are to what you're describing, Allyson. So far, all our votes have easily made the minimum.

Yeah, I have seen representative government proposed here, and as I recall, it got violent, immediate, and almost unanimous opposition that day (clearly, not everybody did or does feel opposed to it). Me, I haven't seen any disasters yet, and what I have seen wouldn't particularly be improved by presidential elections, so I'm still firmly in the run around in a caucus till we're all exhausted camp.

Eh. I am grain of salt girl. Not everybody's salt is as large-grain as mine.

Did we ever decide upon whether we would trash the voting if say, voter turnout was so consistently low, we'd have to concede that we had moved to an advocacy based decision making process?

I think what we have decided on a consensus basis, is that in extreme circumstances we're allowed to break the rules. If this place gets to a point where ballots never get the MVT, then I think folks will agree that changing the rules is appropriate. Although I think that situation would be more a sign of low board participation in general (see my previous comment... t edit I meant my post here: Jon B. "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" May 16, 2003 4:15:20 pm EDT )

Insent Nutty...

Sophia, I'd rather have a small team of advocates make community decisions on behalf of the community. I'm really very clear on what the criteria for that group should be, but posting it? I've already lost enough status on Zoe.

Allyson, you've made it pretty clear whom you want making decisions, and whom you don't want involved in the process. I'm also for a smaller team of advocates making community decisions, but when I suggested such a thing I got creamed. But I think you spend more time complaining on how much you hate this thread, and my posts in particular, then on proposing viable solutions to the problems you are seeing. And this is really not helpful.

Allyson, you've made it pretty clear whom you want making decisions, and whom you don't want involved in the process.

I think you'd be very surpised.

And this is really not helpful.

YMMV

Sophia, I'd rather have a small team of advocates make community decisions on behalf of the community.

Yeah, me too.

Quick! Let's consense!!

Just kidding.