Drafting versus At-Vote Threads

[Krioval]

While reading several threads for resolutions at vote, I have noticed that I easily become confused (bored, enervated, take your pick) by an extensive draft debate that takes up the first 50-90 posts. I know that we're supposed to keep the forum clutter to a minimum, but I'm wondering at the feasibility of starting a new topic when a proposal either reaches quorum or comes to a floor vote. As it stands, I find myself looking for the "in queue" post. If I find the current situation to limit accessibility to the at-vote debate, with all of the draft suggestions taking up the first two pages, I don't know how newer players not involved in the drafting of a given proposal are supposed to jump into the debate without a lot of ineffectual flailing. Maybe we could even lock the drafting thread after voting begins to confine debate to one place? Suggestions (especially *mod suggestions*) are welcome.

[Eireann Fae]

I'd be down with that. Most of the drafting threads are people arguing about how it should be changed, and the content of the law may change dramatically over the course of several pages. Once it's goin' for quorum, it can't be changed anymore, so all that talk is irrelevant. A new thread could be opened solely to advocate (or denigrate) the bill in question.

[Monikian WA Mission]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the ambassadors of both nations. It is my feeling that while forum clutter needs to be minimized that there is a distinct difference between a proposal which is being drafted and one which is under vote.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The main problem that would come up is when you have to hunt down arguments that were made in the draft thread that also would inevitably be brought up in the at-vote debate. You would have decent debates be split, which is pretty unorganized.

I think it would be a good idea, though, for proposal authors to point to which page debate of the final, submitted draft starts. But the debates centered around previous drafts are just as important, I think.

[Krioval]

The main problem that would come up is when you have to hunt down arguments that were made in the draft thread that also would inevitably be brought up in the at-vote debate. You would have decent debates be split, which is pretty unorganized.

I think it would be a good idea, though, for proposal authors to point to which page debate of the final, submitted draft starts. But the debates centered around previous drafts are just as important, I think.

Couldn't that be solved by linking the draft thread from the at-vote thread? My major concern is that newer players (and I) may not necessarily want to read the history of the proposal if we have opinions on the version at vote. Those who would want to argue those things still could, of course, but I occasionally get intimidated by 50+ post count and five previous proposal texts scattered throughout.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Couldn't that be solved by linking the draft thread from the at-vote thread?

It could, but I think it would make things worse in some instances, especially when you have debates from the draft thread still going on, or when some of the debates are still pretty salient. What do you think of adding a link in the OP that points to where the final draft debate starts?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Krioval is right. Lengthy draft debates do little more than confuse those who weren't involved with the draft when a resolution goes to vote. If the draft thread is relatively short and/or the proposal hasn't changed much since the initial draft, I don't see the harm to continuing to use the same thread. But if it's a long thread and there have been major revisions since the first draft, resolution authors should be encouraged to start a clean at-vote thread.

[Unibot]

No, it serves a political move. Drafting threads are sort of like dicks, the bigger they are, the better you think they're gonna be. If I had a drafting thread that is ten pages long, it makes it look like I'm a dedicated author with a substantial piece of work after a long, tiring and brutal shouting match -- if my drafting thread is a page long, all I've got is a crappy proposal on toothpaste color harmonization and a comment from Grays Harbor saying , "What the fuck is this?".

You see the secret is to "win" the page, and if the debate isn't going your way, spam the rest of the page by replying to opponents with quotations from Wizard of Oz and cooking recipes, because people have extremely poor memories.. they're not going to bother clicking the page before the new one.. so essentially,if a debate is going bad, start all over with a new page. It works like a charm.



Wat?

[Krioval]

*snip*

Is this an argument in favor or against my suggestion?

[Unibot]

*snip*

Is this an argument in favor or against my suggestion?

Actually, an attempt at a joke.

I'll try to remember to do this when I make my next resolution.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Snip

The only thing I agree on that with Unibot is that big drafting threads are like big dicks...hey hurt like hell when being inserted into an orifice.

And if it was supposed to be a joke--I didn't get it probably because it wasn't funny. Jokes are by their nature required to be funny.

If the draft thread is relatively short and/or the proposal hasn't changed much since the initial draft, I don't see the harm to continuing to use the same thread. But if it's a long thread and there have been major revisions since the first draft, resolution authors should be encouraged to start a clean at-vote thread.

In the main I agree with that line of reasoning but there is a problem with it. If one asks 10 people what "relatively short" and/or "hasn't changed much" means one gets 10 different answers. My suggestion would be a mod ruling that if a draft thread is X number of pages long then a new thread should be posted when the proposal comes up for a vote.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I doubt you will ever see such a blanket ruling; mods usually determine the usefulness of threads on a case-by-case basis. But authors should definitely be encouraged to start clean at-vote threads if their draft threads are a bit much to take at first sight. And that is all I was suggesting.

[Embolalia]

*snip*

Are Unibot and I the only ones in here with an appreciation of cynical sarcastic humor?

[Krioval]

In the main I agree with that line of reasoning but there is a problem with it. If one asks 10 people what "relatively short" and/or "hasn't changed much" means one gets 10 different answers. My suggestion would be a mod ruling that if a draft thread is X number of pages long then a new thread should be posted when the proposal comes up for a vote.

I'm not arguing for a specific length. There could be ten really long technical posts about the drafting process that could be "too long" in my opinion. It really depends, but I think that the focus should be on making vote threads accessible, whatever form that might take.

As an aside, can we please dispense with the anatomical jokes? Thanks in advance.

[Mousebumples]

I'm not usually "scared away" from At Vote threads, but I suspect such a thing may have happened for me (a first) with Family and Religion, had it gotten to a vote. It's currently at 21 (TWENTY ONE!!!) pages, which is a ridiculous length, in my view.

Since major points were likely debated at length in the original drafting thread, I'd expect that an engaged proposal author could provide links and/or quotes to such discussions in the OP of an At Vote thread. Under a spoiler would likely be best to save space, while still providing the pertinent information. And, yes, I definitely agree with the notion of linking to the Draft thread in the new At Vote thread, of course.

[Unibot]

And if it was supposed to be a joke--I didn't get it probably because it wasn't funny. Jokes are by their nature required to be funny.

Holy shit. Ha, I haven't laughed this hard since I fuc-- Hey.. I see what you did there. You do love me! I knew it!

---

Anatomy jokes shall henceforth cease from Uni. *salutes Krioval*

[The Mago]

Just a thought, why not have the proposer edit the first post to include a bill status and what the proposal changes from draft to the other stages? They could use bold and large fonts.

[Urgench]

I generally find at vote sections of a thread hardly worth reading these days. I find the drafting phases far more interesting to read because it's normally where real thinking seems to be done or at least attempted. Only rarely these days do I find at vote phases really interesting and then its usually because one or two specific players whose abilities I respect (even if I don't always agree with their arguments) have waded into the discussion.

I think some kind of convention on how to organise and display the various different drafts of a proposal might be useful though.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Krioval is right. Lengthy draft debates do little more than confuse those who weren't involved with the draft when a resolution goes to vote. If the draft thread is relatively short and/or the proposal hasn't changed much since the initial draft, I don't see the harm to continuing to use the same thread. But if it's a long thread and there have been major revisions since the first draft, resolution authors should be encouraged to start a clean at-vote thread.

The thing is, long threads during drafting tend to include salient and relevant debates. Indeed, like Urgench said, most serious debate happens before proposals are submitted. I personally wouldn't want my proposal's debate to be locked away somewhere, until the resolution has either passed or failed. I would be willing to point to where debate on the final draft started, but I would like to keep the entire debate intact. Not only for easy reference, but also for history.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The thing is, long threads during drafting tend to include salient and relevant debates. Indeed, like Urgench said, most serious debate happens before proposals are submitted. I personally wouldn't want my proposal's debate to be locked away somewhere, until the resolution has either passed or failed.

Goody for you. You don't have to. I was merely suggesting that authors be encouraged to start clean threads. Of course, the mods at any time can disagree and split threads unilaterally, and if that happens, you just have to live with it.

[Ardchoille]

Gentlebeings,

RECOGNISING that the Secretariat reposes great faith in the commonsense of the GA, and

BELIEVING that most proposal writers have some sort of clue about what's going on ....

Oh, sorry, wrong speech notes. Anyway, I do think the person who's submitting the prop has the best idea of how the discussion has been going.

I'd be fine with a proposer asking in Moderation for his debate thread to be locked and his newly made At Vote thread stickied.

If the proposer knows he's going to be off-line when the At Vote starts, he could prepare an "Advance AT VOTE: Proposal Name" thread and others could link to it in the Moderation lock/sticky request. We'd edit the "advance" out of the title when stickying.

If there's no request/no prepared new thread, we'd just proceed as usual and sticky the debate thread. No splitting/merging once it's stuck.

Any new AT VOTE thread would have to display both the submitted proposal and a link to the drafting thread. We wouldn't sticky it unless it did.

So it'd be leaving the decision to the OP, with the mods locking and stickying only if it's clearly the OP's desire (like, if he's offline, his pre-written thread is all the proof we'd need).

Anyone see any problems lurking in that idea? Any sneaky tricks (not that a GA ambassador would, but ...)?

EDIT: Re history: I suppose we could archive both the debate and the At Vote threads, or merge them once the debate's finished. Thoughts on that, too, pls?

[Mousebumples]

EDIT: Re history: I suppose we could archive both the debate and the At Vote threads, or merge them once the debate's finished. Thoughts on that, too, pls?

I'd think that merging would make the most sense ... However, would it be doable for the Secretariat to add a link to the first post from the At Vote thread to the first post of the Drafting thread? (Does that make sense? Since they'd be merged threads, allowing for those of us searching the archives to just jump to the At Vote portion of the thread would be useful in this regard.)

[Krioval]

I'd think that merging would make the most sense ... However, would it be doable for the Secretariat to add a link to the first post from the At Vote thread to the first post of the Drafting thread? (Does that make sense? Since they'd be merged threads, allowing for those of us searching the archives to just jump to the At Vote portion of the thread would be useful in this regard.)

Merging threads can cause problems when posts overlap in time (believe me, I've seen some unintentionally hilarious results). I think that archiving both (maybe with the OP providing a link from the at-vote thread to the drafting thread) would work best.

[Glen-Rhodes]

EDIT: Re history: I suppose we could archive both the debate and the At Vote threads, or merge them once the debate's finished. Thoughts on that, too, pls?

Merging would be preferred, if I were the mod handling it, since it would cut down on disarray and disorganization.

Merging threads can cause problems when posts overlap in time (believe me, I've seen some unintentionally hilarious results). I think that archiving both (maybe with the OP providing a link from the at-vote thread to the drafting thread) would work best.

If the debate thread is closed in a timely manner, would that be a problem? Ideally, debate would be cut-off at 12:00 in the debate thread, and continue on in the at-vote thread as 12:01. But that requires timely mods!

[Ethel mermania]

Greetings from the PROEA,

Although we are noob we would prefer separate proposal and voting threads. A proposal or draft can be changed; an issue at vote can not. So we think, even though there will be repetition in the two threads, the fact that one is a final debate and one isn't will change the tenor of the conversations, and should be separate.