Xander ,'Empty Places'
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
Please please please please can we not use the word "quorum" to mean "minimum voter turnout" or "minimum number of votes".
Quorum really doesn't mean what we're using it for here. Not in a "maybe there's ambiguity" way like with "majority", but unambiguously.
I thought we'd got the Q-word killed off, and now it's coming back, like some horrible ... coming-back ... thing.
t /needs coffee
You want to stand over it with a stake. (See Buffy vs. Dracula for details.)
Edit: I really have nothing to say. Sorry.
But can we vote on quorums and seconds before knowing how multiple-choice votes are counted?
I'm all for the idea of using preferential voting for these, but at least one person objected to it. Can we ignore that objection or do we have to vote on how to vote first?
We can ignore the objection because that person, IIRC, said we could ignore it. I've seen a consensus that we try a preferential ballot for this next round and see how it goes.
Do we need a re-proposal of what I posted of what Jesse posted, or are we going to wait awhile before voting again?
I think previous discussions have gone much better, despite the extra screen space taken up, when we keep re-posting a proposal, with changes or footnotes.
As has been much-discussed here, one major problem with discussions online is that the issues keep being lost or over-written by new arrivals joining the discussion and previous people leaving.
I think the situation where we keep saying
so here's the proposal:
despite the repetition, is good for keeping things at the forefront.
What John just said.
Please please please please can we not use the word "quorum" to mean "minimum voter turnout" or "minimum number of votes". Quorum really doesn't mean what we're using it for here. Not in a "maybe there's ambiguity" way like with "majority", but unambiguously.
My fault. Sorry.
bicyclops, I think your points are valid, and somewhat of an extension of my earlier point, that status quo would win out even where it obviously lost. But I don't think we need a hard and fast rule that status quo be on every ballot. Proponents of status quo, if any, will make sure it gets on the ballot. We need a hard and fast rule that on every vote there will be a way for one position to win, whether by runoff or preferential voting or other means. If the position that wins is status quo so be it.
Can I be cranky for half a mo and ask when the devil status quo became a dirty word or something considered a bad thing? Because that's the vibe I'm getting, and it's frankly kind of insulting.
status quo became a dirty word or something considered a bad thing
Huh?
I think I missed something.