Of course if that doesn’t work for whatever reason, I’d be happy with there being veto powers anyway.
Mars (Arbital Import)
Karma: 2
I would very much encourage the norm here to be, “If you feel the need to veto something, explicitly start a double-crux.”
Any time a veto happens, this inherently means there is a disagreement that hasn’t been resolved. The bottleneck for Double Crux (CX²) seems to be “explicitly identifying moments in-the-moment where it would be good to use CX²”. Veto situations are an ideal moment.
Well. Actually.
Lighting other candles from the first, as well as if they’re burning nearby, would have various effects on the first candle. The increased heat would make the first candle’s wax evaporate more, and thus burn brighter as well as decreasing its lifespan.
If there’s not enough ventilation in the room, the addition of other fires would reduce the available oxygen, and thus reduce the burning intensity and increase the lifespan of the initial candle, as well as make the flame more yellow than blue.
If there’s no ventilation at all, lighting too many candles will make them all burn out prematurely.
End. Well. Actually.
Would love to read about actual examples, if said people are comfortable with that!
It’s unclear to me, tbh.
Pro: Less anchoring, thus more accuracy
Con: Makes it slower/harder to interact with the site, and/or to get the information or consensus
Perhaps something like, you don’t see it unless you either vote or click “show results”?