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?

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'm sorry you think it's show-offy, Monique, but I genuinely talk that way. I like new words, and like talking about them, and what I really like, in rules-y documents, is saying something and being exact in my meaning so it can't be misinterpreted or twisted later.

(Actually, that's why I wanted to use the word "interdict" instead of "challenge" in the grandfathering proposal: "challenge" is a general word, that just means to question, or stop a thing at the border and make it show you its passport. "Interdict" means categorically forbidding something, which is a more exact description of what the grandfathered "no, you can't propose these yet" proposal was getting at.)

(Okay, "interdict" is a really cool word, too.)

(Okay, I learned it last week and had to look it up to make sure I was using it properly. But still, in the above example? I think it's a better -- more specific -- word than "challenge".)

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.

Well, some of us just talk that way.

Seriously, when the big poli/sci words get dragged out, it's not to impress. It's just that, in the right context, these are terms that don't (well, shouldn't) allow for ambiguity. But you're right, there is a problem when not everyone has the same familiarity with those words and concepts that it actually creates, rather than prevents, misunderstanding.

So call people on it when you see it. But it's really not meant to intimidate or impress.

Well, I think the hope is that nothing will be challenged. But in case there's some decision or other in place that's giving someone hives, it could be challenged. What we're voting on is not-now, no way vs. maybe, in six months. At least as I understand it.