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

When I thought you were using Jon B as your example, because you started with his paragraph about the exact amount of time in four days, that was all right. Wolfram has just been under a lot of singling out pressure lately.

Firefly 3: You Did Take The Sky From Me, You #%(&@#&

I laughed at this and scrolled back up later to laugh again. It is a nice break from the other stuff.

When you guys write these things, I wish you would write them for an audience that is reading quickly from work and needs a clear, concise, SIMPLE explanation of the proposal

I think we should take this instantly to heart. There's always a simpler way to explain something like computers, but I never think to look for it until someone tells me I'm making it way too complicated. Then I realize. We have to keep some precise language to make a good True or False question, but some of the heretofores are just us playing a Wittgensteinian language game with lawyertalk and can go.

1. I feel stupid all the time in these discussions. I am a non-mathy person who can't spell. This was actually why I strongly suggest that the pro and con be summarized for each vote. Leise and I (and others helped) did it for one of the votes it pretty clear language, I think.

Here it is. Sophia Brooks "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 15, 2003 10:51:05 pm EST Personally, I think it is hepful. Do we want to keep doing this? THing is, right now I seem to be the only person willing to do it, which is fine and I can right now, but once I start back at the theatre, following every argument is as time consuming as another job.

2. I don't think it is the voting that is doing this. When it is decided and clearly stuctured, it is just a means to an end-- counting. I agree with Cindy that many of the people who are unhappy now seemed to be FOR the complications, which is sometimes frustrating te me. It could just be my perception-- I know there were times I was FOR them, although after some thought I think I voted no to a lot after it was discussed.

3. Nutty-- I think the"lawspeak" which was a mammoth project-- I congratualate you for reading Bureacracy here-- should be posted but there should also be short bullet pointed instructions on how to vote-- I wrote them a bit back. This could be followed by a short list of the other votes. It would be like a quick reference and an encyclopedia. I am willing to find what I wrote and do some bullet points on the vote. I just really, really think it will help if we don't have to be asking about numbers and ays and such all the time. I was thoroughly involved in the process, I don't remember them, and I get frustrated going through Press to find them.

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

What kind of decisions would you want set in stone? Chances are those are things most people think are set in stone.

Do you want there always to be 4 Buffy threads, including Spoilage Lite, even though the show ends tonight?

We didn't start a voting process to change the board. We started voting to keep track - get a good count - of what final answer everyone gave when doing the business we've always done here.

Examples:

• War thread
• TV thread
• Tim Thread
• Close Buffy Spoilers Lite
• Merge Buffy Previously with Buffy NAFDA

Why is it being talked about as if voting is suddenly going to take Buffistas.org and turn it into a board where people must flame, must have donated bone marrow 7 times, and must have two left-feet - upon which a one-eyed monkey sits?

It's not the voting. The voting is a poll. Simple. Direct. We just didn't use Mr. Poll, because people cheated on the "monkey" thread title and decided to use an email form.

I agree with this, too. The problem was, we decided we needed to get fancy about it -- we decided we needed a specific time period, and a specific discussion thread, and a specific number of users, and before you know it, everyone is pissed off.

BUT we've only been doing this for two months. Maybe by August, it will be second nature. If not, we can open votng for a re-vote. (Har.)

Talking about bringing up "old issues" sounds confusing because then it seems like anything is up for revote.

I'm not sure which way I'm going to vote because I'm still not clear which vote is the one I want. I just can not get my head around this issue and it's frustrating as hell.

Also, why would closing the Spoiler Threads for Buffy even be a voting issue since the show is ending?

I'm not pissed off at the structure of the process we have, I actually like having a discussion period and a few days voting period.

Most of the time I'm frustrated and confused trying to figure out what's being said because I just don't speak the same langauge.

Cindy and her monkeys. I am with Cindy, except for the monkeys.

Sophia, I did include a "voting checklist" as a separate file for the Lawspeak Guide. Of course, I finished it and then sent it to Jon and then went to bed, so I don't have it here. But it was as simple as I could make it, i.e.

____ make a proposal in Bureaucracy
____ four other people say "yes, second this"
____ a Stompy opens Light Bulb
____ post in Press the text of your proposal and a link to Light Bulb

and so forth. I think the last step is to take a nap. I was tired when I finished. (The checklist style is how I managed to submit all the parts of my grad school application, and not forget something. I am a fan of checklists.)

This could be followed by a short list of the other votes. It would be like a quick reference and an encyclopedia.

Well, when it's done being HTMLified, haev a look at what I wrote -- about half quoted text from the ballots, and about half my restating or summarizing -- and then we might go ahead and do a "shortlist of votes we've had" if the long version doesn't suffice. I'm a little afraid of short versions being easily misinterpreted, because one of the chief things I have noticed in 12,000 posts of Bureaucracy is that people tended to think something was settled, only to realize each had been interpreting an idea his or her own way, and those ways were mutually exclusive.

Okay, also I have noticed (a) that people lose their tempers a lot, and that makes me sad; and (b) we waste a lot of time asking, Wait, what did we decide? What were the rules? and floundering around in search of certainty. My motive in the Lawspeak Document was to resolve (b), but I don't know what to do about (a).

Cindy and her monkeys. I am with Cindy, except for the monkeys.

Nutty - I want all the monkeys to die a horrible death. I'm thinking ebola.

but I don't know what to do about (a).

Beyond setting a great example, that is.

Thanks for doing all this, Nutty.

Also thanks to others for putting that stuff out there. I'm another one that doesn't seem to feel a lot of this stuff as strongly as a bunch of people do, so I'm just not sure what to do about any of it. But I wish I did.