RationalWiki talk:Voting Procedure
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
There seems to be a lot of discussion missing here - where's the stuff from "voting discussion" at the RW:guidelines revamp Jan 09 page? ħuman
15:24, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- It's still at RW:guidelines revamp Jan 09 page. Apparently we haven't discussed it on enough pages already & we have to repeat our opinions all over again here. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:46, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- Well, thank you for introducing sarcasm to this discussion, it's just what we need. No one is forcing you to participate if you don't think it's a useful discussion. However, I was merely following Human's suggestion that we move the discussion elsewhere. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:57, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- Yes, but you didn't bring the entire discussion here. And a little sarcasm is in order when someone tells you to restate all your previous arguments in a new place since they were unproductive... ħuman 17:26, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- It is not my point that the individual arguments were unproductive, but that the general direction of the discussion was, and that it would be more fruitful to focus more directly on specific proposals. Moving a whole wall of text here would be counterproductive. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:35, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- I still don't understand why you are the one who decides what the "general direction of the discussion" was. ħuman 17:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- In retrospect, I'm not entirely sure, but I guess it must be either 1) years of experience with working such things out; 2) because this is a mobocracy and I felt like doing it; or 3) my ridiculously good looks.
- I still don't understand why you are the one who decides what the "general direction of the discussion" was. ħuman
- It is not my point that the individual arguments were unproductive, but that the general direction of the discussion was, and that it would be more fruitful to focus more directly on specific proposals. Moving a whole wall of text here would be counterproductive. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:35, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- Yes, but you didn't bring the entire discussion here. And a little sarcasm is in order when someone tells you to restate all your previous arguments in a new place since they were unproductive... ħuman
- Well, thank you for introducing sarcasm to this discussion, it's just what we need. No one is forcing you to participate if you don't think it's a useful discussion. However, I was merely following Human's suggestion that we move the discussion elsewhere. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:57, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- Frankly, I'm tending towards the latter possibility. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- There's an interesting point here, by the way. Apparently, you disagree with my common sense-based decision to put some direction into the discussion. But we'll have exactly the same problem with the ad hoc proposal. In the absence of a clear procedure, someone has to make the call on when to e.g. close the election and on how to count the votes. Who decides when and how to do that, and what happens if others disagree with these decisions? Ad hoc and flexibility is all well and good in theory, but we also have to account for the practical situations that will appear. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:49, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- On the first, it's obvious that your looks are what are holding the day. On the second, I give you the CUR trial and the Andrew Schlafly move debate, both of which worked on the basis of common sense. PS, Voting = "the tyranny of the majority". I see no elements of your proposal that balance that problem. ħuman 00:32, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- On the first, it's obvious that your looks are what are holding the day. On the second, I give you the CUR trial and the Andrew Schlafly move debate, both of which worked on the basis of common sense. PS, Voting = "the tyranny of the majority". I see no elements of your proposal that balance that problem. ħuman
- There's an interesting point here, by the way. Apparently, you disagree with my common sense-based decision to put some direction into the discussion. But we'll have exactly the same problem with the ad hoc proposal. In the absence of a clear procedure, someone has to make the call on when to e.g. close the election and on how to count the votes. Who decides when and how to do that, and what happens if others disagree with these decisions? Ad hoc and flexibility is all well and good in theory, but we also have to account for the practical situations that will appear. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:49, 1 February 2009 (EST)
- Frankly, I'm tending towards the latter possibility. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Although I have missed most of the revamping discussion, I note that almost everyone who has contributed to this page so far has expressed opposition to AKjeldsen's proposal. 
ListenerXTalkerX 00:51, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- I noticed something along those lines myself - in version one, two, and three. ħuman 01:57, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- Indeed, & all the counter-proposals are effectively the same thing. Can we wrap this up soon? WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 04:56, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- Indeed, & all the counter-proposals are effectively the same thing. Can we wrap this up soon? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď