Oz ,'First Date'
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
Okay here's how I see it.
1.) Idea proposed.
2.) Idea discussed.
3.) Idea put on ballot.
4.) If 10 or more people show up to vote the balloting is considered valid.
5.) If more than half of the voting voters vote for it, it passes.
6.) If more than half of the voting voters vote against it, it goes into the idea underground for six months.
The end.
That is how I see it too.
I think for that to happen, we have to ALWAYS frame voting questions into yes/no. Which I don't know is possible.
First rule of bureaucracy deathmatch: There are no rules.
First rule of bureaucracy deathmatch: There are no rules.
It was for your own protection.
Don't say I didn't pretend I was civil.
Can we call Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer?
I think for that to happen, we have to ALWAYS frame voting questions into yes/no. Which I don't know is possible.
Can you think of an example where it wouldn't be possible? I can't think of anything we've decided recently that was more than a "should we do this?" question.
jengod is me, except item 6 is backwards.
I understand that Borda and Condorcet and Australian are "simple", but they don't seem it. They give me a headsche and they aren't transperent (and I took a whole course on hem at college1)
I can understand this. I mean, these systems are devised to be fair, to avoid certain distortions, and they do so by creating mathematical formulae that are not everyone's cup of tea.
But seriously, all a user needs to know is what they do to register a vote, and then what it does in principle. For instance, I'd describe the Australian system thus:
1. Each voter ranks all the candidates in order of preference.
2. The system works out the two most popular candidates, and then finds which one of them most voters prefer. That candidate wins.
Yes, the maths is more complicated than that. But to the user, that's not such an issue. All the maths talk is so much geekery (which is why I've been doing it, of course). For anyone else, I think the above is all that's needed to understand it.
7.) If there are more than three choices regarding any particular issue (thread titles come to mind), a [fill in blank] of votes wins the day.
(If we stay with the three day voting period, this makes sense. Otherwise, we're going to be having about a billion ballots before we get to a thread name, etc.)
Can you think of an example where it wouldn't be possible? I can't think of anything we've decided recently that was more than a "should we do this?" question.
Unfortunately, yes. Spoiler policy for Buffy and Angel cross pollination. Some people wanted 1 week, some the weekend, some 2 weeks, some "until the next show". What we could do is hope to hash that out in discussion and just vote for one choice, Only problem with that is that it might knock mentioning the policy out for 6 months--then we could vote again, except by that time Buffy is cancelled.