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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, we have a Slightly More Critical Issue.

Which is to say, clearing up the majority confusion.

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.

Seriously, what about deciding that as it occurs, so we're not locked into it?

I'm fine with this.

Per John H.'s suggestion, here is the original proposed ballot that a few of us came up with yesterday. Note that the link the the preferential voting explanation isn't live.

Item 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.

A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)

Item 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION

Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.

A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.

ITEM 3a: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?

You are choosing the minimum number of community members voting on any item in order for the vote to count. If fewer than this minimum number vote on a particular item, then that item will have failed to pass regardless of the percentage of votes in favor.

This question is being decided via a preferential ballot, which is kind of an automated run-off system used in Australia and elsewhere. A detailed explanation of how this works is here. You don't need to rank all the choices, but if you don't, and one of your choices isn't a top vote-getter, it's as though there were a run-off and you didn't vote.

Item 3b: ABSTENTIONS

Do abstentions count toward the number in 3a? Yes or no.

If you vote yes, you would allow people to register their vote as an abstention -- that is, with no preference for either choice -- and that vote would count toward the minimum number.

If you vote no, you want only votes that prefer one option to count toward the minimum.

ITEM 4: SECONDS

Before a proposal moves to formal discussion, what should be the minimum number of people who have to "second" the motion?

If a proposal does not receive this minimum number of "seconds", then the proposal will be considered to have failed, without going through the formal discussion and voting process.

This question is being decided via a preferential ballot, which is kind of an automated run-off system used in Australia and elsewhere. A detailed explanation of how this works is here. You don't need to rank all the choices, but if you don't, and one of your choices isn't a top vote-getter, it's as though there were a run-off and you didn't vote.