> > That's where we address things like "what's the point"?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not > supposed to be used as a filibuster. I never suggested that it was. And, in fact, it's the Secretary who gets to say when the discussion period is over, precisely because it might involve a judgment call. > If his answer to "what's the point?" is nothing more involved than > "because I want it to be known where the developership stands on the > question I proposed", and he gets the requisite seconds, isn't it > better to call the vote rather than discussing interminably? Who cares? Why do you ask? How does this question have any relevance? [a] he hasn't gotten the requisite number of seconds, [b] other people posting, ostensibly in favor of his proposals seem to think there is some other point, [c] some of these other people might very well have other proposals to offer. So, amusing as it might be to consider, there's more going on here than Andrew wants a vote. > Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless > by design? NO! That's the really bad part of Andrew's proposal. While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot options themselves are insincere, that encourages insincere voting. -- Raul
