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.

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.

Also giving up. People who didn't want the music thread, were angry, because they felt like it got forced in. People who did want the war thread were angry, because they felt like it got delayed out. And lather/rinse/repeat.

Voting was created primarily to address thread life: creation/shuttering/proliferation/limitation

Giving up. Exactly now.

Sean, you have no idea how hard it has been for me to keep straight what the grandfather proposal means and it's been almost impossible for me to determine how I want to vote that I'm just not going to vote at all.

For whatever reason I can't get my head around this. I know what Grandfathering is. When I read an explination I kind of get it, until someone else tries to explain it to me and then I get confused again, I'm not clear about the implications, and during all of this people keep throwing out new ideas and new issues and it's becoming impossible for me to keep straight what is directly connected to the vote and what is just conversation.

It's making me feel incredibly dense and stupid.

Edited to say---please do not try and explain it to me again.

Also, I know we can't please everyone all the time. We haven't been able to please everyone all the time from the very beginning. My frustration right now has nothing to do with the voting process itself. I'm frustrated because I can't get my head around this one issue.

So... let's all chill, and not change anything right now, and go have some lunch and maybe ice cream, and reconvene sometime later.

Sean, I do sort of see what you're saying. We're a multiplicity of voices, all yammering in the wilderness. That does sometimes make for irritatingly circular discussions. But the irritatingness has been around for a long time, and I don't see it as any worse now than 6 months ago (although possibly not much better). And as askye points out, we have a thing now, a plan, even if it's a flawed plan, and I really don't want to start all over again on the plan.

Let's not go chucking out baby with bathwater, not yet, not now. Especially not because of the events of one week. The people who are exhausted with voting, did they feel that way when we ratified msbelle's disciplinary procedure? I suspect not. It's just this week, let it pass, and see how we feel next week.

Discussion is open for four days. No one, absolutely no one has to discuss for all four days. It's open for that long so a good number of people have the opportunity to have a voice.

If you could find the universal half hour, Sean, that would be great, and we can rest comfortably knowing everyone would be able to say "Well, did you think of it this way?" and then it would be done. Otherwise, my reflex would be to suggest that anyone who thinks one day is a good time, to spend no more than one day on it. Any one day in the four allotted. And then just wait until the vote opens.

Anti-proliferation voice here, but if you said that any thread 12 people wanted gets created, no discussion necessary -- we'd have every thread every suggested. That's not a check at all, and I think that "12" isn't the problem.