Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

Cheeks wrote

Why does it matter?

3

sudo wrote

"Shit Liberals Say or Do" is a long and cumbersome name for a forum. "Shit Liberals Say" is much more to the point. The "or do" part is implied; if anyone doesn't understand that, a message could be put in the sidebar stating that the forum is not just for stupid things that liberals say, but also stupid things they do.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

We already decided on f/ShitLiberalsDo in the thread you linked. Why would we need another vote?

1

sudo wrote

That wasn't a decision, that was a highly upvoted suggestion. Plus, nothing ever came of either suggestion, so I re-opened it here.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

ShitLiberalsDo votes:

yaaqov, thelegendarybirdmonster, sudo, surreal, ziq - 5

ShitLiberalsSay votes:

Fossidarity, sudo, GaldraChevaliere - 3

It's not only a vote if you declare it a vote. People voted, it's a vote. Even if you withdraw your vote from Do, it still wins.

0

sudo wrote

Right. Like I said, that was a discussion thread. No formal vote was ever called. Also, I said that I liked the name ShitLiberalsSay better than ShitLiberalsDo. And /u/TheLegendaryBirdMonster said they wanted ShitLibsDo, not ShitLiberalsDo. So, that's only three people in support of ShitLiberalsDo.

0

ziq wrote

Wtf is a formal vote. Any meta thread where you make a proposal and we all vote is a vote.

1

sudo wrote

It's a thing for parliamentary bodies, boards of directors, etc. It's the distinction between discussing doing something and actually voting on doing it. It's important to call a formal vote, because some people may not voice their opinion in discussion. We had this exact issue happen a few years ago in the communist party branch I'm a member of. The board was discussing who we wanted to invite to speak at one of our rallies. One person was suggesting we invite a preacher to speak, because they would lend us some credibility, and it might lead to media coverage. This preacher is known for being a super liberal "why can't we all just get along" type of person. I objected, because that's not the type of message we want to send. One other person on the board supported inviting this guy, because "why not". Nobody else joined the discussion. After going back and forth for a few minutes, the other person eventually said, "This discussion is over; we're going to invite him, since you're the only one who objects to this." I pointed out that only three people had even been in the discussion, and that we should call a vote on it. The chairperson agreed, and we held a vote. Turns out they were the only two who were in favor of it, and there were six people opposed, myself included. After that meeting, I took the chairperson aside, and recommended that we always make formal motions and votes for big decisions like this in the future. They agreed, and we always have since then.

So, that's why we need to make a distinction between discussion and voting. People who have an opinion may not necessarily voice their opinion in a discussion thread, so you risk leaving them out of the decision-making process if you don't call a vote after discussion.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't agree and raddle has never had that distinction so you can't really tell us what we 'need' when there's been no dialogue about it before.

It being a staple of parliamentary bodies and boards of directors is a good reason to avoid it like the plague.

"Can we rename /f/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo back to /f/ShitLiberalsSay?" is a proposal. literally no one has ever needed to use the word 'motion' to make a vote 'formal'. Everyone in that thread knew it was a vote.

1

sudo wrote

I don't agree and raddle has never had that distinction so you can't really tell us what we 'need' when there's been no dialogue about it before.

Then I'm going to open up a discussion thread about it. As I said before, I believe it is an important distinction to make.

It being a staple of parliamentary bodies and boards of directors is a good reason to avoid it like the plague.

You know what capitalists do? Eat food. I learned that a month ago, and I haven't eaten and food since then. Sure, I might be days away from starving to death, but at least I can confidently say I'm nothing like the capitalists.

If a bad person does a certain thing, that doesn't make that thing inherently bad. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, because he hated the idea of animals suffering and dying to be used for food (yes, really). Does that mean you have to start eating meat, lest you be a bad person like Hitler? No.

"Can we rename /f/ShitLiberalsSayOrDo back to /f/ShitLiberalsSay?" is a proposal. literally no one has ever needed to use the word 'motion' to make a vote 'formal'. Everyone in that thread knew it was a vote.

Really? I sure didn't, and I was the one who made the thread. As I said before, I intended for that thread to be for discussion. And I think most other people understood that, too. In fact, I think you might be the only person who didn't understand that it was supposed to be for discussion. And, yes, there have been people who had to use the word "motion" to bring something to a vote (see: everyone ever in a parliamentary body that follows Robert's rules of order, or some derivative). That's not what I'm suggesting we do here. What I am saying is that we shouldn't make decisions based on what seems to be the consensus in a discussion thread. They should be put to a vote once discussion is finished.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I look forward to crushing your vanguard with 3 words

0

ziq wrote

And they said they like shitliberalsdo and like shitlibsdo even more. Both votes count.

1

GrimWillow wrote

hmm, should I change it to ShitLiberalsDo since it seems that more people wanted it?

1

ziq wrote

I don't really care either way, I just got super annoyed by the nonsensical bureaucracy of declaring the first thread 'not formal'.

I'm also a bit wary because the reddit shitliberalssay sub is one of the big 4 tankie subs and anarchists are often mocked there along with libs.