I hate to break it to you, oh impotent one, but you're not the big bad anymore, you're not even the kind of naughty.

Xander ,'Showtime'


Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier  

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


Typo Boy - Mar 04, 2003 2:13:54 pm PST #6719 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.

And there is at least one example where preferential voting makes sense.

One we decided to have a minimum voter turnout requirement - without deciding what that would be. if you ever had an example where you have to decide between multiple options this is it. Of course as somone said you can just have the choice with the most votes wins. But ya know what especially in a case like this the odds are that it won't reflect what the vast majority want. If you want simplicity and don't care whether the decision making process is rational or fair , why not flip the approapriate D&D die. You have four sided, six sided, eight sided, ten sided, and twenty sided. And there are ways to combine them to get any other number of choices. If "good enough" and "simple" are the only values and "fair" and "rational" are not important, because the issues at stake are so trivial -why not roll dice? If "fair and rational" are important values enough that we want to vote at all, then preferential voting should at least be considered.


Sophia Brooks - Mar 04, 2003 2:14:21 pm PST #6720 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

Anathema--

The reasons I thought voting would work better is

1. I felt that when we had conversations where we came to a consensus, we had no way of knowing whether or not it was a consensus in any sense of the world. Many people feel very strongly about thread proliferation, and it seems like they just gave up, because people who wanted new threads (myself included) shouted them down. They were upset.

2. When we had consensus conversations, it was very hard to keep them on track. They got very circular and into minutea (much like this has. They seemed to have no end, becuase it was hard to tell when a consensus was reached.


John H - Mar 04, 2003 2:15:43 pm PST #6721 of 10001

so why snark at me for understanding you? I'm caught between offended and baffled here

Go baffled, choose baffled!

Seriously. I wasn't snarking.

If we continue doing things by consensus, and we respect each others' feelings to the point where certain points get a veto as soon as someone says "this is making me feel uncomfortable" then the most important things are going to get ignored.

We're only going to achieve consensus on things that nobody really cares about very strongly and the things that people do care about will be under the carpet.


Anathema - Mar 04, 2003 2:16:02 pm PST #6722 of 10001
Jonathan Will Always Be My Hero

No, I get that Sophia. I understand those feelings. My interested just perked up when I read that there some hidden issues that are apparently too controversial to be brought up at this time.


Steph L. - Mar 04, 2003 2:16:18 pm PST #6723 of 10001
I look more rad than Lutheranism

DX did a threadsuck and counted, and 2/3rds of the 1500 posts on this issue have been posted by 14 people.

Wow.

Just...wow.

And I still can't figure out what it IS that has caused so much circular, unresolveable discussion. How we decide to create new threads?

I mean, is that IT? *That's* what's making people get cranky, and teary, and nasty, and making it spill over into other threads?

Wow.


Dana - Mar 04, 2003 2:16:26 pm PST #6724 of 10001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

If "good enough" and "simple" are the only values and "fair" and "rational" are not important, because the issues at stake are so trivial -why not roll dice?

Gar, I'm starting to really resent the tone of your posts. God knows we can all argue this to death, but please don't imply that people who disagree with you aren't interested in what we think is best for the board.


Typo Boy - Mar 04, 2003 2:17:04 pm PST #6725 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.

OK, I apologize for the "cool kids " comment because it offended people. We have an issue, the number of people who constitute minimum turnout that would seem a test case for preferential voting.


Lyra Jane - Mar 04, 2003 2:17:37 pm PST #6726 of 10001
Up with the sun

DX did a threadsuck and counted, and 2/3rds of the 1500 posts on this issue have been posted by 14 people.

Oh.

Ack.

I should really shut the hell up, then, if I'm one of the fourteen (and I have a sinking feeling I am). Because it's not like I care so much about any of this -- I'm happy we're voting, but I don't really have strong opinions on abstentations or number of seconds, and the preferential thing is just way over my head.


P.M. Marc - Mar 04, 2003 2:18:20 pm PST #6727 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear

Actually, we have a Slightly More Critical Issue.

Which is to say, clearing up the majority confusion.


Betsy HP - Mar 04, 2003 2:18:31 pm PST #6728 of 10001
If I only had a brain...

The argument I hear going around and around is:

"The logical and mathematically correct way to determine preferences among multiple choices is preferential voting."

"I don't like preferential voting. It confuses me and/or will confuse others."

Lather, rinse, repeat. I don't think anybody's positions are being changed by either of those statements any more. The cases have been made.