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
What is ripping me, personally, apart is the nitpicking. Single example, because I can be concrete here, not to single out one poster.
Voting should start either tonight (which would allow for four days of discussion if you include Friday's partial day) or tomorrow night (which would allow for four full days of discussion). For previous votes, it's been up to the proposer which way to go.
Why does voting have to start at night? Can't voting start at noon tomorrow or 2:00 p.m. tomorrow?
That's nitpicking. Some things we don't have to do perfectly. Nobody is going to bleed or get their feelings hurt or raise an eyebrow if voting starts at midnight, at 2PM, or on the 57th second after the vernal equinox.
And it is a pattern of doing this that is upsetting me -- not this particular incident, but the habit. Not one single stitch, to use Laura's metaphor, can go unquestioned, undebated, unexplored. That's exhausting.
Hostile McCrankyPants
That would make a great name for Joss' next series.
on the 57th second after the vernal equinox.
Although, interestingly enough, this is when we're supposed to sacrifice a goat to dread Cthulhu. Just, you know, FYI.
African or Asian goat? And do we follow kosher or halal rules?
Part of the nit-picking seems to be our nature, and part of it seems to be just learning the rules. i think when we get our reference adn quick ref page up, there will be a lot less confusion and picking of nits. i hope.
Why does voting have to start at night? Can't voting start at noon tomorrow or 2:00 p.m. tomorrow?
Betsy, the question was asked because Jon said voting would have to be tonight or tomorrow night. And he answered it by saying he only posts ballots at night. Simple question, simple answer. I'm sorry you were upset by it. But some might call what you just did nitpicking too.
Betsy, the question was asked because Jon said voting would have to be tonight or tomorrow night.
Yes. But my point is that that was not actually an important question in the context. There was no stake at risk. All that asking the question did was to extend the discussion. It was a nit.
But some might call what you just did nitpicking too.
What I just did may have been rude or personal (although I tried to avoid that), but it was a specific example used to demonstrate a general trend. How do you prove "Colors disturb me" without saying "That leaf is green, and I hate green"?
What are all these proposals that are ripping us apart, again?
It's not the proposal or result so much as the process, ita.
Somehow I liked it better when we talked about unnamed people being non-specifically disenfranchised than this, which not only gives name, rank and serial number but all the details of the offence.
I understand that some people think that voting is the one true way, and that when alternate paths to a "consensus gathering exercise" are mentioned they slap the "we voted to vote" card on the table.
But, I also see a lot of, what I would call, "significant Buffista" missing from these discussions. I know that is their decision, but I also know them to be strong, opinionated, concerned citizens of the island. And I can't see anything but the process being responsible for their absence.
