Motion to Destroy Ballots Immediately

[jstackpo]

P. 418, line 33: "unless the voting body directs otherwise…": Would such "direction" (presumably a motion to destroy the ballots right away, or the like) require (only) a majority vote or, in the light of the sentences following which lay out a very clear rule as to what to do with the ballots after the election, require a 2/3 "suspend-the-rules" vote to adopt?

[David A Foulkes]

P. 419 418, line 33: ....

Right?

[jstackpo]

Yes, thank you. Now corrected in OP.

[Dan Honemann]

P. 418, line 33: "unless the voting body directs otherwise…": Would such "direction" (presumably a motion to destroy the ballots right away, or the like) require (only) a majority vote or, in the light of the sentences following which lay out a very clear rule as to what to do with the ballots after the election, require a 2/3 "suspend-the-rules" vote to adopt?

A majority vote will suffice.

[Gary c Tesser]

Yes, thank you. Now corrected in OP.

(I propose and request (as, commendably, does Guest_Edgar frequently, possibly among others, IIRC) that when posters correct your posts, you add the correction at the bottom (as do Dan Honemann and Trina, possibly among others, IIRC), rather than change the original (as here), which is disconcerting. And yes, I do see the "Edited by" note in the original post: I'm saying that it's not sufficiently elucidating.

(GPN, please pass on that this is not to be offensive or procrustean.)

[Tim Wynn]

(I propose and request (as, commendably, does Guest_Edgar frequently, possibly among others, IIRC) that when posters correct your posts, you add the correction at the bottom (as do Dan Honemann and Trina, possibly among others, IIRC), rather than change the original (as here), which is disconcerting. And yes, I do see the "Edited by" note in the original post: I'm saying that it's not sufficiently elucidating.

(GPN, please pass on that this is not to be offensive or procrustean.)

Nothing on TV?

[EDITED BY TIM WYNN to add smiley face.)

[jstackpo]

(I propose and request (as, commendably, does Guest_Edgar frequently, possibly among others, IIRC) that when posters correct your posts, you add the correction at the bottom (as do Dan Honemann and Trina, possibly among others, IIRC), rather than change the original (as here), which is disconcerting. And yes, I do see the "Edited by" note in the original post: I'm saying that it's not sufficiently elucidating.

(GPN, please pass on that this is not to be offensive or procrustean.)

What do you click on to give yourself the ability to add commentary to the "Edited by..." line, or are you just typing in that additional information before tapping the save button?

[David A Foulkes]

What do you click on to give yourself the ability to add commentary to the "Edited by..." line, or are you just typing in that additional information before tapping the save button?

That functionality seems to be for the moderators. We regulars have to manually add the commentary/reason for editing into the text area.

[Gary c Tesser]

What do you click on to give yourself the ability to add commentary to the "Edited by..." line, or are you just typing in that additional information before tapping the save button?

(Well, I myslef can't edit at all. When I need to, I have to delete the whole post, and re-post it with whatever corrections there are. And sometimes the website doesn't allow me to delete it at all, leaving me with a teeth-gnashing error-filled post, or an inevitably clunky follow-up post. Witness my rant, post 26, in "Who Can Call A Meeting?," ended 14 Aug 2012 ( ); and I would have further edited the correction, post 29, to insert the forgotten credit to Henry James for the aphorism about writers needing to be interesting, but I got too disgusted.

(I'd follow David Foulkes's [re punctuation, see ever-timely rant] advice if I were you, but I bet Dan Honemann doesn't use those fancy moderator tricks -- just types his correction; and I can't imagine clearer results than he gets that way.)

[David A Foulkes]

..... I bet Dan Honemann doesn't use those fancy moderator tricks....

I'll take that bet.