By a general okay, are you using the terms by which we pass any normal vote?
If 200 users say "use me!" but the board says no, it's a no?
I believe that's my hey. Hey!
Xander ,'Storyteller'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
§ ita § - Jan 14, 2004 9:12:25 am PST #6538 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Jesse - Jan 14, 2004 9:14:59 am PST #6539 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
If 200 users say "use me!" but the board says no, it's a no?
How would that happen, though?
If the posts are going to be identified as from b.org, even if not from Poster X, I'd like to make sure that b.org is OK with it, not just the individual posters. (Anyway, with the opt-in, I can't imagine a lot of people being against it, even if they wouldn't opt in.)
Liese S. - Jan 14, 2004 9:50:28 am PST #6540 of 10005
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
I'd like to make sure that b.org is OK with it, not just the individual posters.
Yes, this. Even though I'm reasonably happy with the opt in process.
amych - Jan 14, 2004 11:30:06 am PST #6541 of 10005
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
If we're doing individual opt-ins, is there any need for the board as a whole to opt-in?
Think of the case where someone is opposed to the thing altogether -- say, out of a desire to have the board as a whole keep a lower profile, rather than being concerned about his/her own posts. If we just have the individual opt-ins, we'd only see that as a not-in, without the larger concern getting aired.
Steph L. - Jan 14, 2004 11:39:59 am PST #6542 of 10005
I look more rad than Lutheranism
But what does it mean for the whole board to opt in? Does that mean that every single member must agree? Everyone who's posted at least once?
Or the dreaded "majority"?
brenda m - Jan 14, 2004 11:42:30 am PST #6543 of 10005
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
But what does it mean for the whole board to opt in?
I don't think it means much of anything really, in terms of action. More of a "yes, good idea" affirmation than anything.
The complicated part will come if it doesn't pass. Not that I see any reason why it should, but still.
Katie M - Jan 14, 2004 11:43:48 am PST #6544 of 10005
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
We're talking about doing a formal proposal/vote, as I understand it. Judging by the comments here, I can't imagine it wouldn't pass.
Jesse - Jan 14, 2004 11:44:33 am PST #6545 of 10005
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I thought we were going to do it like a regular vote -- 42 voters needed and a majority to win.
erinaceous - Jan 14, 2004 12:06:45 pm PST #6546 of 10005
A fellow makes himself conspicuous when he throws soft-boiled eggs at the electric fan.
I'd like to make sure that b.org is OK with it, not just the individual posters.
Yes, this. Because of all the reasons stated above, and also because of the nebulous problem of who actually "owns" anything here. If we say the idea of posting here is owned by the community, although the posts are owned by the posters, then I'd like to get the community's okay.
I'm hoping to have text, and soon. [ETA: for the proposal. This is not me Mr-Burnsing my hands and going "oooh, text!" meaning your words. But maybe that too.]
One of the organizers wrote back to me saying that they often deleted things less than 500 words long, and my first thought was "Oh. So 'rantypants' is going to have a really high frequency, huh?" But he went on to say that this wasn't an absolute rule for data of this kind.
§ ita § - Jan 14, 2004 6:19:13 pm PST #6547 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
How would that happen, though?
Mathematically, very easily. If 201 people vote against it, and only 200 for.
I only think we should have the vote if it's not considered a technicality.