There was a kind of consensus about the one like "Didn't we already do the three squared one before?" (however that was phrased)

The best "27" reference we could come up with is just a reference to a previously used thread title.

Plus, "No consensus" is a gentle reminder that sometimes we fail.

Hec, what did you have in mind?

Nooooooo! Don't encourage him!

We've already proposed a zillion titles. Do we need a zillion-and-oneth?

eta: Natter 26 will be ending soon. "No consensus" is the best consensus we have, and there's no time for new titles.

IMHO.

I'm with Hec. And I'd like to see some play on the 3 x 3 x 3 or 3 cubed ideas.

Three threes a threeing!

Titles that got at least some support:

(next most) Natter 27: We already did a three cubed thing, didn't we?

Natter 27: Dead Rock Stars

Natter 27: We don't need a title.

(next next most) Natter 27: Three Threes A-... Threes... ing.

Natter 27!

Natter 27: And don't think I won't turn this car around.

So Natter 27: Stanley Bearsbreath McKneegrasper

(most) Natter 27: No consensus

From eyeballing (not counting) it looks like the "No consensus" proposal has gotten more support. It is not the best, but it's going to win--sorta like W, except what with the actual winning and all. And that's okay. We're good enough. We're smart enough. And gosh darn it, we Natter.

Natter 27: No consensus

I think it's ok, but it's too long. Can we make it "Natter 27: Nonsensus" instead?

Threes Threes a Threeing is OK by me too.

Threes Threes a Threeing is OK by me too.

Momentum! t rides the wave

For the continuing education of Polter-Cow, and the shuddering flashbacks of others, the preferential voting controversy related back to Bureaucracy 2, when we were instituting voting for the first time. (There having been screaming arguments about whether consensus actually constituted the will of the people.)

Voting having been voted upon, people then began to wonder how voting should work. Preferential voting having been suggested, 500 of the most boring posts in the world ensued, explaining the illuminating joys of preferential voting and denigrating the awful confusingness of preferential voting. It was 500 posts straight of math and mathy-logic, and the universe was very nearly divided by zero before yammering about another topic was able to begin.

Anyway, it ended up not mattering really, since whoever proposes a vote is allowed to write the ballot, and can write whatever form of voting she likes. (I don't think we have had a preferential vote, due to the possibility that a percentage of the electorate would have an aneurysm and we might fail to make minimum turnout.) We have had yes/no questions; questions where you had to answer a number within a range which we then averaged; "if you answered yes to this, please answer yes/no to the following", and I think that is all the kinds of votes we have now had. Preferential voting is not specifically disallowed, but it sure is funny to invoke as a "don't go there! That was lies conversational DANGER!!!" item.

Sort of like gerunds, except the gerunds war was genial.

Ah. All this history I was not a part of. But I was here for the muffalettas. I'll always remember the muffalettas.

feh on No consensus. I'd be happy with either

Natter 27: We already did a three cubed thing, didn't we?

Natter 27: Three Threes A-... Threes... ing.