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.

cereal...

I probably wouldn't second something worded the way Gar's is, because I don't think it's a stompy issue at that level (I realize that was only an example, Gar). I'd want something like X-number of Buffistas requesting the relief before the stompies could act.

So I'm allowed to continue to post about non-show topics if I change nearly everything about how I write?

Fuhgetaboutit. I mentioned Caroma "All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American" Apr 14, 2003 1:09:19 am EDT that I try not to be too serious here and Caroma "All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American" Apr 14, 2003 1:42:58 am EDT why I don't, but people kept on taking everything personally no matter how I pleaded for them not to, and which if I did I'd be screaming at my computer every three seconds, so, I'm censoring myself for harmony's (not the vampire) sake. See you in the show threads and only there.

FIJAGH forever! t sings 'There's a plaaace for us...