I haven't posted very much here because of life, but I voted and read.

Several points:

The people who don't want anything to change, who don't want votes should always vote NO. Otherwise you are just letting the people who like to vote rule the board, and making people like Burrell who want no change BE disenfranchised.

The reason we decided (informally, by consensus) to have the proposer craft the ballot and to have a yes /no ballot is the ease and lack of fighting. My last proposal had to be delayed for a significant amount of time because somebody brought u a point which made me uncomfortable about posting. I wanted to wait until I had more of a consensus. It was scary and terrifying to me and I got all frozen and upset.

Further, the proposer is SUPPOSED to listen to the discussion and change the ballot accordingly. The are listening for consensus and trying to craft a ballot that is a consensus. Although, ultimately, the could decide to ignore this, what our current, common sense type buffistas are doing is being the person who is doing all the listening and then crafting the ballot. The consensus method of crafting a ballot doesn't work without a lot of fighting and anger. When I did the final proposal on the last ballot, I proposed something that I voted NO to, becuase it seemed like it was what people wanted.

The Yes/No thing limits preferential voting and discussion thereof. It too, is an informal rule which makes things easier and keeps the discussion from being about voting methods rather than the issue at hand. But it only works if the people who don't like any part of it VOTE NO. This is what saves us from random troll making a proposal and voting it in-- we need to vote no if we feel that way. And I have.

However, if the proposer is really doing his/her job and truly listening to the pulse of the people, I can see why we have more yes votes-- the consensus has been reached-- the proposer is responsible for drafting it.

I think the consensus method was driving people away, too, just not the same ones. Thing is, if they were driven away by the consensus, they had no voice. Voting gives driven away by process people a voice-- vote no.

Concur with Sophia, that a clever proposer -- maybe even a wise one, I don't know -- crafts a ballot that is likely to win, based both on ease of use/readability and on the opinions of the people talking in Lightbulb.

I think there's the outside possibility that a proposal that is confusing or vague or deeply unpopular or outright obfuscatory could get to voting stage, but given the nature of Buffistas, I foresee people saying "That's a bad ballot! I don't understand what I'm voting for/against! Vote it down on principle!" -- which hurts the proposer, because then the proposal doesn't just lose but is off the table for several months.

Eternal yammering is the true price of freedom.

Eternal yammering is the true price of freedom.

Heh. Now we see the virtue inherent in the blah blah intensive system.

A lot of people don't vote because they are too preoccupied with other things in their life and don't feel like voting, and by the time they do seek it out, the voting is usually over, so they give up and don't even try anymore.

Then there are people like me who don't seek to vote later, either, and are happy to leave the results of the vote to the voters.

OK - a question on the "close issue" rule.

Suppose Trudy or I were the propose the following:

In case of warning or bannings - a majority of stompies have the authority to veto a warning or banning which they decide violates elementary fairness or common sense.

Leave aside the pros and cons of content for the moment. Is this revisiting a decided issue, (the warning process) or is it a new question (a procedure for making sure warnings are not given unfairly or stupidly)?

Before proposing anything that gives more power to the stompies, I think it would be polite to ask them if they want that kind of responsibility. (Considering that they were originally chosen based on coding skills and time zones, not desire to be moderators.)

I think it would be polite to ask them if they want that kind of responsibility.

Absolutely, but Gar's point is not the content, but whether, in general, "refinements" fall under the 6 month rule.

I have mixed feelings about this, and I think my feelings may be influenced by my opinion of the ballot just passed (I was strongly in favor). I'm very much in the "let's-try-this-out-and-see-if-it-works-before-suggesting-any-more-changes" camp.

But I'm not proposing it yet. If I propose anything it may be different. (And I would certainly ask the stompies before proposing they have more power.)The immediate question is - is this trespassing on a closed issue? Because if so , there is no point in further discussion.

X-post with Rob.

Gar's post is more or less what I suggested before the vote.

At some point, I think it's quite likely we'll get a multi-troll, sadly, and I'd rather have a procedure in place to deal with it pre-emptively. And if our moderators aren't going to be the ones to do so, there's no one who can.

But I'm happy to let it wait till the six months have passed if other people aren't worried.

Gar - It wasn't addressed in the last (or any) ballot, so I don't see it as flying in the face of the moratorium thing, but that might just be me.

If it had already been proposed, and either not seconded, or actually made it to a ballot but been voted down, then I'd have an issue with it as an end-run around what we just voted on.

Say you're driving and a cop who pulls you over and gives you a ticket. The cop has the authority to do that. If you feel you didn't commit the infraction, or there were extenuating circumstances for your infraction, you can appeal. An appeal doesn't void the cop's ticket-issuing authority. It allows you to seek relief if/when something goes awry in the ticket process.

Sometimes you'll win your appeal. Sometimes you won't.

I have mixed feelings about this, and I think my feelings may be influenced by my opinion of the ballot just passed (I was strongly in favor). I'm very much in the "let's-try-this-out-and-see-if-it-works-before-suggesting-any-more-changes" camp.

I know my mixed feelings are only because I am in the same "let's try this camp". I liked msbelle's proposal. The only way I would have liked it better is if she'd broken up her first group of points, so you could vote one down, if you wanted, without negating the whole ballot. I almost voted "no" on the whole thing because of that, but like Hec, I think "good enough" is a good way to decide these things.

Regarding this concern expressed by Michele, Trudy and Gar, I wouldn't make a proposal of my own, because I am not concerned enough about it. I might not vote in favor of it if it is proposed. But I would second a proposal (if I didn't think it was either an end-run or ridiculous), because it only seems fair. msbelle didn't (and didn't have to) include anything that allowed for immediate relief, but that doesn't mean Trudy, Michele, or Gar (or anyone) couldn't propose it separately. It's a separate procedure.