Got it now.

I guess my concern is about how the phrasing of a ballot effects the outcome and that one person determines the phrasing.

For instance, if the matter just voted on had been worded:

Any ten posters can (upon stating publically within 24 hours of each other) for any reason officially censure (and ultimately ban) another poster.

The votes may well have lined up differently.

So, come June 29th if I'm still concerned about how ballots are written I can propose something.

I'm probably a bit late, I got interupted by a co-worker (the noive of some people! :)

How many seconders to turn a proposal into a vote?

4

How many voters to makle a vote count?

42

How long before you can propose an end to voting?

6 months

The moritorium on moritoriums can be reviewed in 3 months. Every other vote stands at 6 month.

The initial vote, to approve voting, is here jengod "Sunnydale Press" Mar 3, 2003 12:00:27 am EST

And I think it's important to remember that 135 people voted on the subject of voting. 120 people said, yes, I want voting to be the way that things are decided.

With the way this board works, that's an overwhelming number of people. And either definition of "mandate" would work here.

Yeah, they'd probably have lined up differently. That's a different proposal.

That's not just wording, that's concept. Assuming, for the moment, that you didn't mean to swap 24 for 48 -- msbelle's prime proposal was about how to institute an action. Whether that becomes a censure or a ban was NOT up for vote, as it's already been decided. But it is in your proposal.

So, come June 29th if I'm still concerned about how ballots are written I can propose something.

Actually Trudy, my reading of it is that you'd have to overturn the moritorium decision itself, in order to revisit an individual decision in less than 6 months.

Edited to add..

further discussion on a given matter should be closed for 6 months. If this initiative passes, we agree at 3 months from the day (date) the poll closes, to take a vote of confidence on this decision (only), to see if we think 6 months is too long, too short, or just right.

This decision will stand until June 29th, at which point it may be revisited.

My concept is different because my concern is different, but the net result would be the same. Ten people can now click-up and, ultimately, boot someone off the board.

(and, yeah, the 24/48 was a mix-up)

My concept is different because my concern is different, but the net result would be the same. Ten people can now click-up and, ultimately, boot someone off the board.

I still am not seeing where you are getting this.

Any ten posters can (upon stating publically within 24 hours of each other) for any reason officially censure (and ultimately ban) another poster.

But it's not "for any reason." The first person has to provide reasons why, and it has to have been discussed in-thread first. I also think that people here have enough sense that something that's obviously for no reason will be ignored.

If I and ten friends officially had a problem with, say, the word "cunt" and the offenders refused to stop saying it they could be warned, suspended and then banned.

If I and ten friends officially had a problem with, say, the word "cunt" and the offenders refused to stop saying it they could be warned, suspended and then banned.

But you don't. And "cunt" is not in any way a violation of the community standards, so it wouldn't really be a valid complaint anyway.

And "cunt" is not in any way a violation of the community standards

Unless what we've done is change the way "community standards" are determined.

I ask George to stop using the word "cunt".
He doesn't.
My friends do too
He still doesn't
I lodge a complaint. I link to the refusals as evidence. The other ten people second me. The letter goes out.

It doesn't matter that the vast majority of people have no problem with the word "cunt" because there is no place in that scenario for them to stop the action.