Out of all the fourteen, I think Sophia is the one we would have made the least progress without, from her précis of the W/X discussion onwards.

wrod.

Also - Jon, good job.

Thanks Noumenon. I don't think I'm the only one who worked hard, but that means a lot because yesterday was a very, very, down day for me because of this.

Also, I am wondering, becuase of Rebecca's question if we should add to the press announcement

1) the time period of the vote

2) Somthing saying: This is a re-vote of this question with clearer wording. If you have changed your mind since, you are welcome to vote differently. If you voted for supermajority, you are welcome to vote.

Oh-- and yay Jon for pulling this one together!

This is a re-vote of this question with clearer wording. If you have changed your mind since, you are welcome to vote differently. If you voted for supermajority, you are welcome to vote.

I recommend:

This question further refines how we determining a winning vote. The first ballot didn't take into consideration that some issues up for vote would have more than two choices. Your vote on the last poll does not commit you to vote in any certain way on this poll.

Because really? Supermajority has nothing to do with this. I've seen people say it might have lost unfairly, but it didn't. No matter how you look at "majority" in the first poll, supermajority (or higher majority as it was defined) made it clear it was a percentage higher than 50%. The problem lay in my use of the term simple majority when I really should have used most votes.

That's great Cindy. Just want to make sure it is clear that it isn't a poll.

I added the polling dates. Cindy - How would you incorporate your new refinement of the intro to the existing intro? 'Cause I'd like to keep the humor of the existing one.

Jon, you have:

What do you think a "simple majority" means and how would you like it applied to determine future votes?

Maybe at the end of it, just add:

Your vote on the last poll does not commit you to vote in any certain way on this poll.

...except, Sophia, I'm not sure what you mean by:

Just want to make sure it is clear that it isn't a poll.

Actually, you don't need to explain to me. I don't want to bog everything down. This is up and running already, and I don't really need to know. But how I ended the suggested phrase up there, might be need to be tweaked to reflect whatever that means.

I don't know how to say it, but both Burrell and Rebecca asked "Is this a POLL of what I thought when I voted last time or a VOTE asking what I want now?" I think it is explained pretty clearly, except perhaps the use of the word "poll" is confusing some people?

Perhaps:

Your vote on the last ballot does not commit you to vote in any certain way on this ballot.

Oh, I was using poll not in the Burrell/Rebecca way. Yes, your wording is good, Sophia. Less confusion that way.

I've just been using poll in general, to get us back to the more casual Buffista vibe of "we're not the supreme court, we're friends deciding on issues about a posting board". Sorry for that. I like how you put it.

I don't know if this helps, but here's how I'm thinking about it: The earlier vote was between "50%" and "more than 50%," kind of. (I mean, I understand that majority is 50%+1, but stick with me.) "More than 50%" lost. Now that we're thinking about questions with more than two options, we realize we need to decide between "50%" and "potentially less than 50%."

Does that make any sense? Help anyone clarify at all?

(And yeah, big thanks to Sophia.)