Yeah, obviously you cannot round up a quorum online. I just thought you guys wanted to set a minimum number of votes for passage, and a quorum to me has always been, apparently incorrectly, a majority of voting members, as opposed to a majority among the ones who bother to vote that day.

I personally think that both the quorum AND the abstention thing are too complicated for our purposes.

The only draback to not having a quorum is that you could change something with only 1 or 2 people. However, I would hope that people who felt against something would not be apathetic and vote against it!

so does the tallyer stay the same? Is it always jengod? Is it the person who wants the votes (this is where I worry)? Do we seek out a neutral party?

Ultimately, we'll have an automated polling system. Until then, I think it shouldn't always be Jengod (unless she really wants to), and it certainly shouldn't be the person who made the motion.

A number of people volunteered to do it, so I think we're neutrally covered fora while.

so does the tallyer stay the same?

Both Jesse and I volunteered to tally votes when needed, so I don't think jengod will need to carry it all her own in the future.

[Edit: obviously, an x-post]

As I have said, I think the place runs well as is, so I would be more than willing to abstain from all voting and just be a vote-counter until you get an automated system in place.

Ok I am being Ms. non-trusty nasty person today, but if we go to an automated polling system, I would suggest that it NOT allow you to see the current vote like several on-line polling places do.

Is not a "quorum" used in order to ensure that a vote cannot be taken at all without the participation of a majority of members?

On this board it is impossible to ensure that a majority of the 800 registered members vote on anything. I truly believe the purpose of a quorum, in our context, is to make sure that enough members are apprised of and care about a proposed issue that's being voted on. Therefore all this discussion about abstensions is, in my opinion, a waste of bandwith.

Filling up a quorum with abstentions is nonsensical and defeats the purpose of having a quorum. To keep members apprised of the votes they are posted in Press. To find out who cares about the issue, count the yay or nay votes. "Don't care" votes are useless. And obviously if somebody does not care about an issue either way they should not have to come in and vote on it. If enough people don't care about the issue, then there won't be a quorum and that will decide the issue on its own.

It has been my experience here (albeit limited) that every issue that "matters" gets a number of people discussing it, pro and con. I suspect if a quorum is voted in it will be high enough to ensure that the two people who want a Clem is Hotttt thread will probably not prevail, but low enough that the people who want to end non-spoiler whitefonting in NAFDA threads won't have to lobby 300 registered voters to weigh in on the issue.

I would like to suggest we rig the voting in order to ensure that a Clem Is Hotttt thread passes.