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.

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."

Okay, so I didn't remember the exact reasons there was a re-vote. My point still holds, which is that there had to be a re-vote because of a misunderstanding of what the wording meant.

I know -- I was just supplying details, steph.

And yet, Steph, it was because we used a "simple" word, (i.e. "majority") that we needed to have a revote. If we'd used more complicated language (i.e. "50% + 1 of the votes cast excluding those for no preference"), we wouldn't have needed to revote, but people would have complained that the wording was too complicated. We can't win!