vöt idempotency

what about vötvötgil

testing. hiiiiiiiiiii

what kinds of << things do you do

if apioforum had ranked-choice voting this might be more interesting. on the other hand, it mightn't be

i vote for -> for its whimsical charm

now there is a poll.

poll, in 1 moment

meowmeowmeow

consider: good (very very good)

apio announcement: BMH has been banned from apionet and apioforum indefinitely due to repeated disruption. We apologize for not having done this a long time ago.

apionet is clearly a beehive. bmh, why do you keep voting again with every post?

nobody ever pays attention to the non-argument apionet messages.

yes, this sad fact is the reason we created this RFC in the first place. the hope is that by moving the arguments to somewhere else, or by discouraging their existence in the first place, or both, we can give the other discussions some actual space to exist

'experiencing emotions' is not in fact a "condition", nor can or should it be cured.

what time period would you suggest?

caesar, citrons, please discontinue this argument or take it elsewhere

which channels of apionet do you not have access to? all apionet channels should presumably be accessible on all platforms that apionet is bridged to.

also, what is your opposition to the conversational guidelines?

caesar, would you mind elaborating why not?

I think we should do both, by the way.

I have created a poll. If you care about this, vote on what you think we should do.

Opposed: In the past, i have seen this tried and not work; it creates an atmosphere under which arguments are encouraged to happen because there is persistent systematic acknowledgement of their existence. There is also a heap paradox problem in the definition of ‘long arguments’: any drawage of the line will most likely be arbitrary, and leaving it up to “administrative discretion” creates a hole through which those with administrative power are given infinite power. Enforcement of a law to move arguments would require administrative intervention, something not always possible and something which would upset the atmosphere of Apionet.

I don't think this policy would require "administrative intervention" or "law enforcement". It could be something as simple as this: at any time, anybody can request that a present train of discussion be moved to the other channel; the conversation is then moved. (Unless those involved in the discussion believe they have a particularly strong reason not to, in which case ideally we try to collectively come to a consensus, and failing that there is some fallback. The fallback could be "the conversation is moved by default" or "an admin decides" or "everyone present votes", or probably other things. This parenthetical aside is much longer than I thought it would be.) There are various trivial variations that could be made to this, for instance requiring two people to request a conversation move, or something.

Anyway, this is all not important. My point is that a) drawing a solid well-defined line to define "long argument" is not needed or wanted, because this decision can be made on a case-by-case basis by whichever users are present; b) administrative intervention will not be necessary except, possibly, in extreme cases.

I propose we create a second channel, with a policy similar to what I have described, on a trial basis, for a period of say 2 weeks. After that, we can discuss its efficacy. If it isn't working, we can unimplement it again.

Nobody likes moving things between channels.

i don't like the longwinded and circular arguments that are currently frequently occupying #a.

one thing we could easily do is to create a second channel that long arguments can be moved into.

i had an 'oopsy woopsy' moment and deleted about 6 months of posts irreversibly . sorry

oh, my mistake, sorry

oxford street? i can't find that on the map

i'll get things going by playing bank/monument. nothing too interesting there

seems like post #1 was deleted, but i don't recall why