hah! that was Liese, actually.

I guess I can listen to two conversations at once, but sometimes can't even read one properly.

As for "no preference" I'm sure I've voted that way in the past. And I would probably vote that way re: the current proposal because I think voting is important, but I don't read Boxed Set and don't watch Supernatural.

Is that how you interpret "no preference"?

I understand that no preference is like a vote for a moratorium. But if you want something to pass, then vote yes. If you don't care what happens, abstain. I would prefer a separate moratorium vote than smaller and smaller majorities enacting thread after thread.

ETA:

Someone mentioned earlier that they weren't really invested, but would vote with the majority so the most people were satisfied. I hate that.

This is what no preference is in practice, though.

This is what no preference is in practice, though.

I don't think so, one is guessing what the majority is, the other is allowing the majority to reach a quorum.

But I thought the NP votes weren't counted towards the decision, just the quorum. So a NP vote is not the same as voting yes or no by default. Am I right?

I don't see how the result is different. The more I think about it, the more I think no preference voting obviates the requirement of a quorum. Isn't the purpose of the quorum to prevent small majorities from enacting preferences? No preference voting defeats the point.

In practice, a NP vote has historically been equivalent to a Yes.

The more I think about it, the more I think no preference voting obviates the requirement of a quorum.

So yeah, this.

It's not though, because it doesn't throw extra votes to whatever the seemingly dominant position is.

(Much longer explanation than this deserves:)

So some people want text in all purple all the time, and some people hate that idea. Other people could give a shit, or can't make up their minds, but do want this issue to stop coming up. So they're gonna vote with the majority.

If the purple people shout loudest, that's them. If the anti-purples shout loudest, that's them. Maybe the groups are the same size. Maybe there's a lot of support behind one or the other, but for whatever reason, they're shy about speaking up. (Probably scarred in the ZebraStripeWhiteFont wars of Aught Six.)

I don't care but I want more people happy. Voting no preference means that if one side really is overrepresented, or underloud, the real numbers will out in end. Now, the louder side may have convinced a lot more people, which is a-ok. But if 20 people want X, 30 people want Y, and another 20 could give a damn but throw their support behind Y because they keep seeing the pro-Y argument and you still don't care but assume there are more people represented, it skews the result.

In practice, a NP vote has historically been equivalent to a Yes.

Wait, I don't get this. If the 50%+1 needed to pass a resolution only includes the Yes and No votes, and does not include the NP votes, how has NP been treated as a Yes vote? The only way this makes sense to me is if TPTB said, we got 10 Nos and 5 Yeses, but 30 NPs, so it passes!

Isn't the purpose of the quorum to prevent small majorities from enacting preferences?

This is a good point.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by skewing the result-- do you mean that it "appears" to be a larger majority than it would otherwise be? If the result of the vote is the same, then what difference does it make in practice that one side won by one vote or 30?

I don't want to make a proposal, well, period. But what do people think of a moratorium question on a vote? You can see the real numbers of yes and no votes, and if we don't reach a quorum, we can still enact a moratorium.

The more I think about it, the more I think no preference voting obviates the requirement of a quorum.

This is actually why I suggested raising the "quorum". I think a lot of people want the opportunity to vote 'just shut up about it already" or "I am willing to be happy with whatever the most people want"