I'm sorry, Wolfram. I shouldn't have used you as an example. That was rude.

Me too, Betsy. I've felt bad all night about snipping at you, and this is the first time I'm gotten back to a computer to apologize. After this post, I'm stepping back from right hand threads for a few days for my sake as much as everyone else's.

There's a lot of posts I don't understand.

And this. I'm a law school grad and I find myself having to read some of the voting mumbo-jumbo over and over and sometimes it still doesn't sink in. So count me among the educated and stupid people too.

See y'all in the lefties.

I still don't understand what the grandfather proposal does.

Right now, after we vote on something, no one can bring up the same topic again for six months. This was one of the main selling points of having voting -- that old decisions wouldn't be continuously revisited. The grandfather proposal extends the "six-month-rule" to decisions that we made before we started voting on things. For simplicity, Betsy proposed that no old decisions could be revisited until Sept. 20 (six months after she first made the proposal).

That doesn't mean that all old decisions are going to be revisited on Sept. 20. Just that they can't be reviewed before that date.

Is that more clear?

The grandfather proposal is ... odd.

If we discussed a topic--the war thread seems to be the most often-used example--and it was dropped by agreement, but never voted on, it could be brought up again for proposal. So can anything that was decided by general agreement before voting was standardized and formalized.

By grandfathering in all decisions made before we voted, it means none of those things can be brought up for the period of six months' moratorium. If we choose not to grandfather in everything the board ever decided those decisions can be challenged, brought up the same as new topics, put up for a vote, and possibly overturned, even if they are already in practice.

Did I get that right?

xpost with Jon, who said it better.

FWIW, both "quorum" and "preferential voting" were so confusing to the rank and file that (a) we spent hundreds and hundreds of posts trying to explain to each other what they really meant and (b) we abandoned using both phrases back in February or so, because they were only getting in the way.

It's entirely legit to be confused about what something means; I went ahead and made a fool of myself this afternoon by misinterpreting something and blundering into a completely different issue from what was on the table. And then I asked what was going on, and then I figured it out, and then I felt stupid.

If we are willing to ask, and keep asking, and keep asking, the talk will get back to comprehensible-land eventually. This is the first time I've heard a complaint that the proposals/ballots are phrased in a confusing way -- it's good to keep in mind, for proposers and ballot-writers, so they'll avoid writing a ballot that's so confusing everyone just votes it down or just doesn't vote. But it's hard to know that someone is confused if nobody admits they're confused.

That's correct, Bev. You said it better than I.

But it's hard to know that someone is confused if nobody admits they're confused.

Like my granddaddy used to say, "The only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask." :)

If we are willing to ask, and keep asking, and keep asking, the talk will get back to comprehensible-land eventually.

I'm going to just say it: But wouldn't it be easier if people would drop the $1.50 words and write in language that won't send some of us running for our dictionaries? I thought people were having enough problems with the amount of discussion in this thread -- asking over and over for clarification until I can understand the proposals seems like it will lead to more back and forth and naval-gazing.

This is going to sound rude as hell, but I feel like the big words are dropped in there more to impress other people with your vocabularies, rather than to get the point across.

A yes vote means things decided before voting can't be brought up again for 6 months.

A no vote means things decided before voting can be brought up, but don't have to be.

The "things" are stuff like thread names, but not the name of the board, or how many stompies, or things that are supposed to be permanent. I mention this one because I was confused about it and relieved that it was said, somewhere, and I'm believing that it's true.

x-post because I want to be sure I'm understanding.

Thanks Jon. But what I neglected to add was, if we vote and pass the grandfather proposal, it can only delay for six months, not prevent, any of those prior decisions being brought up for discussion and vote, should anybody want to challenge any of them.

I think we could use the six months break, from old business at least. I could, anyway.

Is that more clear?

And if I want none of our old decisions brought up for voting at all?

Is that a choice? I think I'm just confused as to what the point is? We wait six months to vote whether or not we want to demolish Bureaucracy, or we can do it tomorrow.

This is what this means, yes?