Originally Posted by
bdschobel
And, as the TB president, I seconded nsx's superb motion to formalize the process. I'm actually stunned that people are voting against it -- and on such flimsy grounds. (Essentially, "This amendment process might be abused, so let's not have one." Of course, if you believe that TalkBoard is full of scoundrels, then you have a lot more than that to worry about.)
Bruce
Who is claiming they're opposed to this out of fear of abuse?
Originally Posted by
rwoman
Another "no" vote here. I support taking the time to go through and make sure a motion is as accurate as possible before voting.
Nope, don't think I said it...
Originally Posted by
Canarsie
That is not the reason why I voted against this motion.
<snip>
...but I did not vote against it because I believe the process could be abused. After thinking about it, the conclusion for me is that I simply believe that it is not necessary. I trust fellow members of TalkBoard — otherwise, I would not have considered being a member of it in the first place.
Did not see Canarsie post it either.
Originally Posted by
dchristiva
I voted "no" based on feedback from goalie and kipper and others who said similar things. As much as I want to have confidence that good common sense would prevail regarding "friendly amendments", I think that permitting them is a slippery slope and could leave too much open to interpretation/opinion.
I feel more comfortable killing an imperfect motion and starting over rather than trying to amend one on the fly.
Another TB member who acknowledges a concern over a "slippery slope" but doesn't claim a "NO" vote due to abuse but a desire to vote on a motion they're satisfied with.
I too would hope common sense will apply (perhaps four instead of for or too instead of two, to, etc.), but it does not always happen.