OK - I'm going to leave the thread again for the day so as not to get excited. People are taking offense. And I'm feeling offended by people people taking offense. So rather than get into the cycle we got into last time, I'm going to leave, and come back tomorrow.

I'm not so much seeing that all status quo is evil, but I have seen a number of "some change is better than no change," or words to that effect. (I'm sorry, I don't really have time to go back and find exact quotes. And it's not a major thing, just a general feeling I've noticed behind a few posts, and I don't totally understand why it's there, and I could have been reading more into posts than the poster intended.)

I'm not so much seeing that all status quo is evil, but I have seen a number of "some change is better than no change," or words to that effect. (I'm sorry, I don't really have time to go back and find exact quotes. And it's not a major thing, just a general feeling I've noticed behind a few posts, and I don't totally understand why it's there, and I could have been reading more into posts than the poster intended.)

Hil has said what I've been feeling without my cranky. Actually, frankly, I don't see a problem with status quo having the advantage in terms of numbers or whatever, because I think that the very action of voting on something carries the implication that there is something that could be better than the status quo, which negates any inherent advantage the status quo may have.

I think the some change is better than no change comes from the arguement that it just seems numerically unfair, if there are 2 options for change and 1 for no change, that the if one didn't have a runoff or preferential voting or something that option 3 has a better chance of winning.

However, we haven't come up against that yet, unless we try to combine a vote for

1. Do you think a certain number of people should have to second a motion before it goes to a formal discussion.

with

2.(If yes wins) How many people should have to second a motion for it to move to formal discussion.

I could have been reading more into posts than the poster intended.

I honestly think this is the case. The only thing I've seen posed is that sometimes "status quo" is an inappropriate default when the majority want change.

Let's not worry about this now and move on to deciding Sophia's round of questions.

This is what my understanding of the status of our decision making….

I thought we had decided it was neither possible nor desirable to anticipate every possible type of decision we could ever have to make and create a contingency plan for that situation.

I thought it was “case by case” with a decision to be made soon concerning how to handle votes that have more than a Yes/No option. Preferential vs. Run Off with the likelihood that it will end up being case by case?

Also, I didn’t hear anybody saying status quo was a dirty word, just one of the options in any given decision.

I thought there was 4 questions to be decided.

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD – a Y/N decision

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION – a Y/N decision

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT – Structure of vote to be decided

ITEM 4: SECONDS - Structure of vote to be decided

It is quite possible that I have missed something else we are deciding.

xpost with Jon which links to what I thought we were deciding

I would like to change item 4 to reflect what I said above:

ITEM 4: SECONDS
a. Should there be a minimum number of Buffistas to "second" a proposal before it can be brought to a formal discussion and vote?

b. How many Buffistas should it take to bring a proposal to a formal discussion and vote? a. 3 b. 5 c. 10 d. some other number?

(also, these numbers came out of my ass.

Structure of vote to be decided

t broken record I've seen a consensus to go with a preferential ballot this one time and see how it works out. t /broken record

Sophia - Why not just make "0" one of the options? Doesn't that do the same thing? The mathematician in me says "yes".

Preferential works for me Jon.