No, I'm trying (in vain) to understand the justification of this vote.
It isn't a vote,
TH. It's a way of trying informally to look at the situation together, to see if we can better understand the strength of feeling behind the stands people have taken.
That's what I don't believe.
I think we had the result we had, because of course those who wanted a new office would vote "no" on this,
No, I think those who voted no on this were voting specifically against the idea of the Mayor overseeing hearings, unrelated to the previous vote.
and those who wanted someone else (admins?) or no one to do it, voted "no", too.
This is why I posed the questions I posed. To try to get through this labyrinth of overlapping causes for the two results, and see to the bedrock of people's positions here.
So, maybe the only people we should ask are those who voted "no" on the mayor doing the job AND "no" on the new office and ask them what it is they want.
If we limited that to those who answered yes to the question of whether they recognized a need for procedural oversight, I think that might be useful.
I mentioned some of these reasons exactly in a previous post and you dismissed them!
I'm sorry, I don't remember dismissing them. Evidently we simply disagree very strongly on all of these points. I don't see any chance of reconciliation on the issue.
No, it's because of that AND because they didn't want another office!
Yes, of course. But they weren't voting on this choice:
Either vote for Loremaster, or no oversight.
They were voting for this choice:
Either vote for the new office of Loremaster, or the Mayor will do it.
The ballot following the Loremaster vote did not even include the option of the Mayor NOT overseeing hearings until I requested it. IT HAD BEEN ASSUMED.
On the other hand, the people who voted for the Mayor not to oversee WERE voting for this choice:
Either vote for the Mayor to oversee, or no oversight.
Besides, since when do the reasons for which a vote had this or that result have an influence on its validity?
It isn't about the reasons. It's about the fact that the choices were fundamentally different for the two votes. That can be rectified now by revoting on Loremaster, with the choice being
Vote for Loremaster, or no oversight.
The second vote made the result of the first illogical, therefore it clashed with it.
It absolutely did not make the result of the first vote illogical. The first vote showed that people didn't want to create a new office for procedural oversight. (Some thought procedural oversight unnecessary, others were banking on the idea of the Mayor doing it.) The second vote showed that PEOPLE DID NOT WANT THE MAYOR OVERSEEING HEARINGS even if that meant having no oversight of hearings.
It just shows that people either voted incoherently or that they wanted a third option, which wasn't represented in either choice.
What it shows is that the people who wanted procedural oversight but didn't want a position created, assumed that if Loremaster failed, the duties would default to Mayor.
What we all got was the only third option available, which is what we collectively, for all our tangled up reasons, wanted. No oversight. It was a combination of opposition to an office, and opposition to the Mayor overseeing. That's why my questions are posed the way they are. They would get to the heart of the matter, as to whether anyone is willing to move on the subject.
I'll have to look it up again, because I don't remember, but if in voting on the new office we did not say it would be for procedural oversight, what did we say it would be for?
Yes, we said it would be for procedural oversight. But we did not say the alternative to creating an office for procedural oversite would be no oversight. That is the error we can rectify now, by having another vote.
I looked it up - of course it DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT!
From the ballot archive:
We will create an office whose function is to oversee hearings and ensure that proper procedure is followed. This person will be a resource for juries and all other participants in a Hearing. It will be their resonsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the charter concerning the Outside Forum, Member Rights and Responsibilities, Powers of the Admins and any other issues affecting Hearings.
IT DID NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT. IT DID NOT FRAME THE QUESTION IN TERMS OF HAVING PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT, OR HAVING NO PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT. The option of having the Mayor oversee hearings was waiting in the wings. PEOPLE WERE NOT REJECTING THE NOTION OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT, they were rejecting the notion of creating a position specifically for procedural oversight WHILE ENTERTAINING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE DUTIES WOULD THEN BE ASSIGNED TO THE MAYOR.
The ballot did NOT say:
We will create an office whose function is to oversee hearings and ensure that proper procedure is followed. IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THIS OFFICE, THERE WILL BE NO PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT OF HEARINGS.