board77

Had to stop by here 'cos the PMs are still coming to me. Will copy them into thread when I can sit longer. The pain is ghastly but got some meds and feeling a bit better.

Ax and laureanna defintely favor first option - the shorter one, Voronwe's. I believe that was A on our ballot ... w/out additional ramification stuff.

Frelga favored the other, with the ramifications stuff.

So it we go with their vote, then it's the first one.

You can still vote a second time in committee if you want to.

Jn

EDIT: OK, Additional PMs added to post on previous page

Well, I have to agree that the subcommittee of three has come to the most perfect conclusion, and I say let's accept their decision and pack this puppy up.

The fact that they decided on the same option I did has nothing to do with it, of course.

Well, I don't think they have come to "perfect conclusion" at all!

If they had agreed on one option, it might have been different. But this vote is just as divided as ours.

(Just seen that the PMs are on the previous page, will go to read them.)

Err—two to one? That isn't a tie, so it isn't as divided as our vote.

Divided, yes. But not tied.

And I was kidding about the perfect conclusion thingy.


Edit: Cross-posted with Prim.

I still think she's reading my mind, and it's beginning to freak me out.


Just sayin'.

Well, it can't be tied with three people, can it?

But it's not very decisive in either direction, hence it's no more clear than our decision, IMO.

(That's why I said I'd have found it more acceptable if they'd come to a 3-0 agreement.)

I read the PM, and don't understand a word of what Ax is saying, so, as I agree very much with Frelga, I guess I disagree with him.

Quote:

It raises the paradoxical possibility of someone noting a decision is going to cause trouble and thus making it INeligible for reconsideration, since it is thus NOT unforeseen.

Can anyone please explain what that means?

truehobbit wrote:

Well, it can't be tied with three people, can it?

But it's not very decisive in either direction, hence it's no more clear than our decision, IMO.

(That's why I said I'd have found it more acceptable if they'd come to a 3-0 agreement.)

But 2-1 is still a majority, and the majority wins.

truehobbit wrote:

I read the PM, and don't understand a word of what Ax is saying, so, as I agree very much with Frelga, I guess I disagree with him.

Quote:

It raises the paradoxical possibility of someone noting a decision is going to cause trouble and thus making it INeligible for reconsideration, since it is thus NOT unforeseen.

Can anyone please explain what that means?

If we can only have a re-vote because of an unforeseen change in circumstances, then a change in circumstances that somebody foresaw would technically not be eligible for a revote.

Suppose that during the original vote one person pointed out, "You know, passing this means that consequence A is likely to happen, and that's big trouble for the board." Suppose the measure still passed, and consequence A did happen and it was big trouble for the board.

Someone could argue that because one person did foresee consequence A at the time of the first vote, then the big trouble is not an "unforeseen change of ciurcumstances" and therefore there can't be a re-vote.

I just got the following PM from Cerin, who gave permission for me to paste it here:

Cerin wrote:

Hi Prim

I thought this might be quicker than posting in the Convention discussion thread. A couple of things occurred to me.

Axordil: Figuring out that something just plain doesn't work would be an unforseen result, for example, and thus a serious change in circumstance.

I'm not sure about this comment of Ax's. I think if we are going to consider something 'just plain doesn't work' as a change in circumstance, that we have to be spelled out, because I think that's a stretch. I think realizing something hasn't worked out isn't a change in circumstances, but a realization of ramifications.


or serious ramifications not previously recognized

Ax is concerned about this, but I would point out that 'foreseen' is not the same thing as 'recognized'. One person could foresee something and not have it collectively recognized (I believe this is what happened in the wilko vote discussion). Perhaps a qualifier could be added (not previously recognized by the community), or 'previously' could be replaced with 'generally'.


unless a genuine change of circumstances justifies holding an additional vote

If you go with this version, then I think you have to explain or give some examples of what 'genuine change of circumstances' means, or we're in for a heap of trouble.

Sorry I wasn't keeping up with the discussion, could have spoken up sooner.

Cerin

But this is more clear than our decision. Our decision was tied. Theirs was not. It's true that theirs couldn't be tied, but that was the whole point! A total of three people were picked for that very reason, of course.

A point I almost made myself, Faramond. I have been much distracted elsewhere, today.

Three is a magic number, chosen on purpose. Three means that no matter how close the call is, it's not tied. I really believe that the reason this question keeps coming up as close in voting is because the two choices are so similar in intent.

I got this PM from Frelga:

Frelga wrote:

TH, as I can't post in the Jury thread, could you please share this with others as you see fit?

I voted for "changes or ramifications", and from your post, it seems ramifications are important to both of us for similar reasons.

OTOH I must admit that the UNFORESEEN qualifier in the ramifications bothered me so much that I came close to changing my mind. In a way, I see that it serves a function - because if a consequence HAD been brought up in the original discussion, it may be assumed that the board has voted to live with that consequence. And if the consequence turns out to be worse than originally expected, why, that's unforeseen, isn't it? So I stuck by my vote for "ramifications", but my real preference would be for some careful editing of the presented wording.

I don't know whether there's any point in my saying that, but that needn't stop me, right?
:cheers

Thanks for trying to explain Ax's point, Prim!

Quote:

If we can only have a re-vote because of an unforeseen change in circumstances, then a change in circumstances that somebody foresaw would technically not be eligible for a revote.

I'm still lost, though.
If someone foresaw a change in circumstances, they'd surely say so before the vote. So such a change would of course be unforeseen.
And if the vote was accepted in spite of that, as you say, Cerin is right that it's possible that this is because the person wasn't listened to properly at the time - it's possible that the majority doesn't realise the consequences until later. So for them it's unforeseen.

But the text doesn't talk about unforeseen changes of circumstances at all!
It talks about genuine change of circumstances!

Quote:

If you go with this version, then I think you have to explain or give some examples of what 'genuine change of circumstances' means, or we're in for a heap of trouble.

Cerin here says what I said in this discussion earlier, too: this is almost impossible to define! The ramifications-clause makes it easier for a committee to decide that something really happened that allows for a revote.

Like Frelga said in her PM to Jny: circumstances are something external. In my reading, a change of circumstances would only be, for example, we move to another board and can't implement there what we had voted to implement.

Finding that a decision brings us trouble is something different.

Say we had forgotten that ToE should be adults only and decided by vote that it should be accessible to all.
Now we get a lawsuit about letting a minor see what's discussed there.
So we want to change that decision and have a vote to ban minors from ToE.

Is that a genuine change of circumstances? I don't think so!
But it's a ramification not previously recognised.

You guys, I think we are spending too much time trying to control too much of the future.

No matter how much more these two phrasings are discussed, there will still be future circumstances in light of which their meaning will have to be debated.

This is a terminal act. Find the courage to commit it. Either hold a revote of the committee or go with the 2/3 opinion from 'outside.'

Jn

I support the outside opinion (and I honestly don't know whether it matches the way I voted or not). I do not think a revote of the committee would necessarily break the tie. Nor do I think this matter is worth more time than we've already spent.

Honestly... I haven't been able to read up fully in here. It's a mad busy week for me.

I wanted to pop in however to state that on principle (in this kind of case) I fully support the 'outside' view of the subcommitte... and no, I have no idea if it ties in with my vote either

I too support the vote of the subcommittee (although unlike Prim and Viv I have to say that I do know that it does match how I voted).

So perhaps we could have a committee vote on whether or not we support the subcommittee's decision (and I suppose we can assume they have stopped debating?)

To quote another committee member who I deeply respect: I'm not trying to hijack the process. I'm just urging, as a committee member, that we all move this along to some sort of conclusion.


Do you support the subcommittee's decision?

Yes

Prim
Alandriel
Voronwe
Anth (geez, I almost wrote my RL name! )

No

perhaps truehobbit?


Jn never EXPLICITLY said either way, so even though I think I know what she was implying, I'll wait for her word.


Still to be heard from (committee members who have recently been involved with voting) : Faramond, IdylleSeethes, Eru (Mossy's on vacation, I think)

Am I missing anyone?



And a big THANK YOU to our subcommittee members.

Anthy, I think that both Jn and Faramond can be counted as supporting the sub-committee's decision, since it was the two of them that called for the sub-committee in the first place.

I think we have a clear majority.

I thought so, too, VMan. But I hate to presume.

I don't care either way, and it's a majority decision already anyway.

With respect to the phrasing of the clause, I agree with Frelga - you've seen from my example (or not) what I think the phrasing means.

So, I support the majority decision, but it does not correspond to my vote. ("Support the subcommittee's decision" sounds too much like saying my vote would be the same as theirs, which it isn't. )