Filling up a quorum with abstentions is nonsensical and defeats the purpose of having a quorum.

I disagree. I might care enough about an issue to think that it should be decided one way or another, even if I personally have mixed feelings on the issue. I just want it decided!

Of course, I abstained on the quorum question because I really, really had a hard time understanding the concept and couldn't form an opinion.

Sophia is me. And I was embarrassed about it, too, because Cindy went to such extra pains to explain it, and I just got more muddled.

In usage on this board, does "a quorum" mean that a certain minimum percentage of registered users must vote, either for or against, in order for a subject to be decided? Whereas a subject allowed to pass by a "simple majority" would pass by a vote of 51% to 49% of however many or few people vote?

I disagree. I might care enough about an issue to think that it should be decided one way or another, even if I personally have mixed feelings on the issue. I just want it decided!

Exactly, also, many people may just not give a damn about an issue, one way or another, but cast an abstaining vote out of deference to those who care deeply.

In usage on this board, does "a quorum" mean that a certain minimum percentage of registered users must vote, either for or against, in order for a subject to be decided? Whereas a subject allowed to pass by a "simple majority" would pass by a vote of 51% to 49% of however many or few people vote?

Yes. Except that voted abstentions count as well. Also, a quorum is not necessarily a percentage of registered users. We could set an absolute number.

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.

Speaking of which, could we include this in the next ballot? I know it's not a constitutional issue, but it does seem we were reaching a consensus on this before the board went kablooey. (IIRC, it was white-fonting things from new episodes in the other shows' thread, but only for a week). I don't want that to get lost in the shuffle, since it seems that cross-discussion might become more important fairly soon.

I suggest that we stop using the word quorum, and instead talk about our minimum number of votes needed, if that's what we mean.

Depending on how high we set the minimum quorum, the more comfortable I get with a simple majority vote.

Except that voted abstentions count as well.

We haven't actually decided this, right?

In usage on this board, does "a quorum" mean that a certain minimum percentage of registered users must vote, either for or against, in order for a subject to be decided? Whereas a subject allowed to pass by a "simple majority" would pass by a vote of 51% to 49% of however many or few people vote?

A "quorum" doesn't need to be a majority. It just needs to be a set number. My suggestion is we use the current round of voting as a yardstick to figure out about how many people are "really" active (as opposed to those who just swing by once to say "JOSH!!! I LUV U JOSH!!! FRIERFLI4EVAH!!!" and set a fraction of those votes as the quorum.

For example, say the current round of voting--which seems brisk--indicates about a 100 "active, participating members." We could then set a quorum from that at, say, half, or even a third or a quarter. Personally, I think 50 minimum votes, including abstentions, is jim dandy.

The upshot, of course, is that means we need to have a vote to decide what the "quorum" is if that method wins. Sigh. I suppose we can also name the next Bureaucracy thread: "We Need to Decide How to Decide Things."

Jesse is me. In fact, I'm thinking of banning all words beginning in Qu from my vocabulary. This is going to make it tough to ask form my "**een of all things" mug at home. But it's the only way I don't see my head exploding on the carpet.