I want to see the system in action for a non-policy decision or five before I even contemplate another change to the system.
What bitterchick said (and all her words above it too).
Buffy ,'Showtime'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I want to see the system in action for a non-policy decision or five before I even contemplate another change to the system.
What bitterchick said (and all her words above it too).
If there is not 42, the vote is as though it never happened, so it could be voted on again.
Thanks Jesse! Sophia
edited to add...
You know, I don't know.
ahh.. welcome to Confusion, Jesse. I'm the first house on the right.. no.. the left.. wait, if you're coming from town and the electric train's smoke is blowing north, three people get off at chattanooga and I'm the house that's earwormed by Hepburn's Bunny Watson. Come sit a spell :)
edited because in my confused confusion I called Sophia Jesse.
Jesse I am 100% certain. Really. Ok now I have to look it up.
If less than 42 people vote, then the issue is not considered closed, and the moratorium does not apply. Otherwise, what's the point of having a minimum voter turnout?
Sophia, my first inclination was what you said, and then I started to mind-fuck it. And of course, what Jess said.
This is why I should stop posting.
So just to get this straight, this new regime is going to feature military levels of discipline, which will be administered by ita, and will involve a lot of people being thrown up against walls?
We're gonna need a biiiiiiiiiig wall. IJS.
As the proposer of the Grandfather-Got-His-Head-Bashed-With-A-Ball-Peen-Hammer proposal, I can assure you that, should it fail through lack of interest, its name will never pass my fingertips again.
Language nitpick: IIRC, it should be "fewer" than 42, not less than. Votes are discrete, countable things.
IIRC, it should be "fewer" than 42, not less than.
You're right. That is a nitpick.
Whereas voters? Some aren't even discreet.
Lysana, my sister in less/fewer distinction.
Do we have anything in the Text? NUUUTTTTYYYYY!!!!
Hey. No, we never discussed this, that I could find. I am happy with Betsy's assertion that if this vote in particular does not get a minimum voter turnout, she (for one) will not try it again. And anyway, it's the sort of proposal that is only useful the once; the whole issue will be 100% moot by September.
(Anything to get it done, right?)