So 0 to 10 (eleven choices) for seconds?
0,3,5,10? I don't think we need to include every number in the range.
'Him'
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
So 0 to 10 (eleven choices) for seconds?
0,3,5,10? I don't think we need to include every number in the range.
I don't think we need to include every number in the range.
I know, I know. Maybe 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 as a compromise?
Also, we need to let people know whether the number is inclusive of the proposer. (I think it is pretty obvious, but...)
I think just seven choices-0,1,2,3,4,5,10.
I just want to be sure that out of 100 voters, if 25 want 2 Seconds, and 20 want 3 Seconds and 20 want 4 Seconds and 35 want 10 Seconds, the 35 don't win it. That's very disparate and unfair.
That's very disparate and unfair.
Wolfram - That's why I'm proposing a preferential ballot. Your problem goes away under that method.
Jon B - you know I prefer preference voting. Actually I deleted the post. I was starting to assume that preference voting was ruled out, and was suggesting a fair way to count the result if we used Wolframs post.
But it seems like consenus has shifted to preference voting , which is my preference, so no need to distract anyone with a way of making Wolfram's proposal practical.
No worries, Gar. I deleted mine too! :)