Someone proposes a thread, and if enough people second it, the thread is created. You set the number of seconds to a reasonable number. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to handle issues like that.

On a persnal level, I agree, and would set the number to 12.

But...

I'm where Beverly is. I thought half the impetus behind voting was the idea that process wasn't good enough -- that it wasn't fair to create thread just because enough people asked for it at the right time, and that new threads should have broad community support signified through a vote.

I thought half the impetus behind voting was the idea that process wasn't good enough -- that it wasn't fair to create thread just because enough people asked for it at the right time, and that new threads should have broad community support signified through a vote.

I think if you have enough seconds (and twelve might be too low), you can demonstrate broad community support. Not looking for majority support, just enough interest.

As with the troll procedure, you could put in a stompy override if the system just couldn't handle another thread.

I'd like to talk out new threads, and make sure we really want to make them. Acclamation to a certain number doesn't have any discussion built in, and that bothers me; I remember in the first (first here, anyway) discussion of a politics thread, several Pros became Cons after they read their peers' insistence that politics were best not isolated from the monkey-grooming of Natter.

(Similarly, the Tim thread on the table may eventually want to be something slightly different from what Allyson originally proposed, especially as we look at the fall lineup.)

I want that persuasion/assessment space for future new thread creation, and I fear that if we go to creation-by-acclamation -- which is even less "everybody feels heard" than voting! -- that we'll lose it.

I completely agree with DX, but all that this really does is prove my point - that for every idea we bring up in here, there's another set of people that will fight to the death/panic, scream and flee at the suggestion.

But I think here's my point over the thread creation thing - I don't think oration will change people's minds as to which threads we want, and which we don't. The war thread is a perfect example - some people wanted it, some people didn't. There was some considerable debatre over it, and some people, even more than wanting the thread, wanted to advocate for it. They did so. We didn't make a war thread.

I'm willing to bet that if it had been brought to a vote, it wouldn't have passed, and in fact, I'm willing to bet that if we took a vote before the debate, and then again after the debate, it would have failed both times, and the number of votes that changed their minds after debating would have been statistically insignificant.

I know that when you're dealing with the statistics of small numbers, as we are doing here, there is the possibility that a switch of only one or two voters could totally change the outcome, but what I'm trying to point out is that even on decision we're closely divided on, we're never that close to 50/50, and any oration would not change enough minds to change the outcome of the vote.

Which is really a long winded way of making a secondary point.

My primary point still stands - somehow, we are all letting the Bureaucracy thang get us all het up, and none of the things people point to as the source of the problem are correct.

It's all of it and none of it that gets people riled up/makes them want to cry/makes them want to line up everybody who disagrees with them and have them shot. It's the process itself.

And while this may mean that perhaps what we shouild really do is get rid of the process entirely, I'm betting there's a bunch of people who think I should be locked away where I can't infect people with my dangerous thoughts for even suggesting such a thing.

Well, being irritatingly not-easily-divisible into two opposed camps is actually a good sign, right? We're not left vs. right; we're elephant vs. dumptruck vs. eyeglasses case vs. pineapple. That speaks well of us, that we haven't reduced anything to partisan politicking.

Hey. I can pollyanna anything.

In all seriousness, I think Sean's got a point that we all need a break. I've been quietly thinking about a thread shrinkage plan, to deal with the end of Buffy, but you know what, it can wait. We're not that desperate for bandwidth/server load. I for one am looking forward to (a) tonight; (b) the F2F; and (c) getting over the massive posts both (a) and (b) will cause. And then, when we're all bored out of our skulls in August, I will oh-so-innocently suggest something.

See if I don't.

Wait. I thought the voting process was going to address PRIMARILY thread creation. Now we want thread creation to be a separate procedure?

I officially give up.

Now that we've been using the system for a few weeks, I feel that the process is too long and involved for the creation of a thread. I don't think thread creation needs four days of discussion. You either want a thread or don't.

The thing is, the process was deliberately chosen to be that length so that people who aren't always around (no weekend access, serious home/work pressure) would not get excluded from decision-making, and would have a chance to express their opinions. Yes, it's frustrating for people who are on all day long at work and can see new proposals as they come up and decide on them immediately, but in the interest of fairness, it has to be that way.

One thing to remember, and this goes against the grain for a lot of us, is that just because the discussion period is four days doesn't mean we have to keep discussing things throughout that period. Some subject will warrant days of extended discussion. Others clearly don't. But the purpose of the four days isn't to generate a certain volume of debate - it's just to make sure that everyone gets their shot. If you're relatively sure of your position on an issue, wait til the last day, skim through, and cast your vote. If you want to get your opinion out there, post it, fine. But don't keep coming back to the thread longer than your interest demands.

But I think here's my point over the thread creation thing - I don't think oration will change people's minds as to which threads we want, and which we don't. The war thread is a perfect example - some people wanted it, some people didn't. There was some considerable debatre over it, and some people, even more than wanting the thread, wanted to advocate for it. They did so. We didn't make a war thread.

I'm willing to bet that if it had been brought to a vote, it wouldn't have passed, and in fact, I'm willing to bet that if we took a vote before the debate, and then again after the debate, it would have failed both times, and the number of votes that changed their minds after debating would have been statistically insignificant.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, though. When someone brings something up, often there are a lot of fairly automatic "good idea" responses. Then a few people weigh in with their reservations, and a number of people switch sides. This is more or less what happened with the last vote, which ended up not passing.

But the thing to remember is that the discussion only has to be as involved as we want it to be. Think that a new Anti-Monkey thread is an easy yes? Go to Lightbulb, say "I'm all for it," and then, when the vote comes, vote. You don't have to answer every point that comes up.

My original perspective on voting was that it would be more in the nature of ratifying a decision than making one. That's why I didn't want the last proposal withdrawn despite the fact that it seemed clearly destined for failure. It's pretty easy, really, to get a feel for what people want around here. The purpose of voting was to make sure that that feeling was accurate. There's still value in that.

This is why it's confusing! Right here! We'll be almost at the point where a decision is about to be made (we're almost to the time to vote on the grandfather issue right?) and then someone will say something that just turn the issue on its ear.

Which is why I got so pissed off about the warn/susupend/ban issue--we had that all made out and the first time we used that people were like "no no it should be different, let's do this". And so we changed it.

And now a few people are saying "well, thread issues shouldn't be voted on like we do with everything else" at the exact point where we are basically voting on that issue.

The way I understand it is if the grandfather proposal issue passes we will not be able to revisit the way threads are created until whenever. That we will only be able to use the current method of proposal, seconds, 4 day discussion and then voting.

Am I right that if this passes then we won't be able to revisit the way threads are created?

Burrell, before you give up, I'm not actually advocating anything other than finding a way for this to be more painless.

My opinion on the thread creation process is really a secondary consideration.

Your reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm most concerned with is how to stop people from walking into the B'cracy, freaking out completely over whatever is being discussed, and running away screaming.

Whether this is the right process for thread creation just happened to be something I took as an example, and I even made a point of pointing out that I knew that somebody would have your reaction to what I was saying.

Am I right that if this passes then we won't be able to revisit the way threads are created?

Well, yes, you would be right, if we were actually to vote on it. But we're in no danger of that.

This was just something that came up in the course of conversation, people! It was never meant to actually turn into a policy debate, or be formally proposed to await seconds.

Let's all just take a deep breath and relax. Which is what I've been advocating all morning.