'Shindig'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
most items have passed, but wouldn't have if a quorum hadn't been reached
Do we have stats on this? Because it seems to me that it is just a recent thing, but my perception could be skewed.
I think in all of this we should remember that the genesis of voting was to keep the imaginary people with the loud voices from skewing the consensus. It is an (admittedly imperfect) way to allow a focused discussion in a limited time frame and then poll the buffistas.
I think in all of this we should remember that the genesis of voting was to keep the imaginary people with the loud voices from skewing the consensus
What has happened instead is that a small number of loud people are still skewing it because the rest of us can't be arsed to form an opinion and we vote NP just to make the issue resolve. Or because most people are polite enough to think that an issue should pass if people feel passionate about it, that we want to give people what they want.
but if most people vote NP then they don't WANT.
most items have passed, but wouldn't have if a quorum hadn't been reached
Is this true, though? And, if it is, wouldn't removing NP have the same (but opposite) effect? That is, most items would effectively result in a "no" vote since they didn't meet the quorum?
Megan, with the difference of there not being a 6-month moritorum on the issue. So if it doesn't meet quorum it isn't resolved. It's still open for discussion.
>Because: most items have passed, but wouldn't have if a quorum hadn't been reached
OK, I just checked the last six votes we've had, going back to August 2006.
In EVERY case, the main item on the ballot would have passed with a quorum even if the NP votes were excluded. In a couple of cases, the secondary items on the ballot (e.g. white-font rules), would not have reached a quorum, but (in my opinion), those are exactly the sorts of decisions where a NP vote makes total sense. For example, you want to close the Veronica Mars thread, but don't particualrly care whether it happens today or in the fall.
What has happened instead is that a small number of loud people are still skewing it because the rest of us can't be arsed to form an opinion and we vote NP just to make the issue resolve.
I really think we should look into root causes and possible solutions if buffistas feel this way. That is, is it a perception issue, is it a new issue caused by people not understanding no preference in context, is that we are sick of all sorts of voting and just vote because of the moratorium, or many other reasons why people feel that way? Once we get to the bottom of that, we can make solutuions.
My personal experience is that I skip the vote if I just really, really don't care and that I vote no preference when I want the majority to get what they want. I understand that other people have different no preference experiences.
...and we are quickly running out of blah-blah space here.
Go Mr. Rogers. Choose Mr. Rogers.
Given that I've just PROVEN that NP votes have not affected the outcome of our votes, can we get back to naming the new thread?
Go Mr. Rogers. Choose Mr. Rogers.
What Frank said.
Megan, with the difference of there not being a 6-month moritorum on the issue. So if it doesn't meet quorum it isn't resolved. It's still open for discussion.
Yeah, I guess that's a pretty big difference. So, are the people who think there are too many "yes" results because of NP, hoping to force more people into voting an opinion, or hoping for more "no" results from abstaining (and presumably more discussion of the issue)?
I like Job (for the thread name).