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.

Thanks for doing all this, Nutty.

Yes.

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.

I think we look at it for what it is and stop trying to manage stuff that isn't on the table in the first place.

We're voting, so that when (Betsy, I'm using you as an example that I might be false remembering you into) Betsy proposes a war thread and gets support for it, but then Kat comes by with good reasons why we shouldn't have one and convinces a bunch of people to change their minds, we're clear on who wanted what at the end of the conversation, and we don't need Kristen to Nilly and tally hundreds of posts to figure it out.

We acknowledge that many of us are pedantic detail freaks, and/or trouble borrowers, and then we chill. We treat this the way we always have, only now we have a counting method, and we go forth and post. I say we stop trying to build a constitution other than what we already have, and just use voting for what it was intended:

• Do we want this thread?

• Do we not want that thread?

• Do we add a new show to our pantheon?

We get on with being Buffistas, rather than spending leisure time legislating the life out of a counting method. Because the folks who are very into legislation each have their own perfect way of doing it, and the folks that are very anti-legislation each have their own perfectly horrid nightmare of what's to come, and we're killing the fun.

Cindy, generally I am with you on the above. I have many thoughts about future thread creation, and possibly shrinkage. I would like to post those thoughts at such time that they are relevant thoughts. I hope that time is, like, Thursday or Friday.

But I am also a nerdy detail freak.

Count me in the group of people who gets incredibly confused by the wording of -- and discussion of -- proposals up for a vote. Not JUST the Grandfather proposal, but all of them.

In fact, didn't we have to re-vote on something because people didn't understand what a Yes or No vote meant they were choosing?

I'd prefer simplicity.

In fact, didn't we have to re-vote on something because people didn't understand what a Yes or No vote meant they were choosing?

That was because some people voted for "majority" using the interpretation of "more than anything else," while some others read it as meaning "more than half."

I think our decision on a re-vote to go with the second meaning is going to cause more problems than it solves, as questions with 3 or 4 natural choices end up being thrust into dichotomies, adding to the level of tortured language and tortured pre-vote discussions. But that's my issue.