What's the big deal with no clear 50%+1 = tabling? I don't see it as a rebuking of any change. I don't see this as a never talk about it again. It's just don't talk about it for a while. How is this such A Big Thing?

I'm not trying to foist anything on anyone. Really. But I thought we had consensus.

I didn't see a consensus for it. I saw the usual gang of fourteen.

I did too, but sometimes it is hard to tell. It seems like the people who think "What is wrong with the status quo/" also think that we sholdn't have preferential voting, but I can't tell anymore. My comprhension was low today.

OK-- so if we change the wording to make it 2 votes, it seems like we avoid the problem...

(well except for the problem that if we vote yes, and then don't get a clear majority, we're just stuck in limbo)

It seems like the people who think "What is wrong with the status quo/" also think that we sholdn't have preferential voting, but I can't tell anymore.

This is not me. I think that we shouldn't rule out "no straight majority means the issue gets tabled for now" for all issues. Preferential vs. runoffs is a separate issue, and while I'm more in favor of runoffs, I'm fine with preferential if it'll work. (I guess my view right now, on most of these issues, is, "Let's try it and see what happens, then decide what works.")

I didn't see a consensus for it. I saw the usual gang of fourteen.

If the "gang of fourteen" are the only ones giving an opinion, then how else do you propose we reach consensus.

Let me ask this differently - How do you propose we vote on questions 3 & 4 (min turnout and secondses) if we don't use a preferential ballot?

If the "gang of fourteen" are the only ones giving an opinion, then how else do you propose we reach consensus.

I honestly don't know. I mean, at this point, I know people are avoiding the thread (because they've said so in other threads), and that they "trust the process/don't want the headaches." But ends up being kind of circular, because I get the impression that the Go14 thing is part of the reason people get frustrated and leave the thread. So, who knows, and who knows how to get people invested in actually stating an opinion when, at the end of the day, they have other things on which they'd rather be spending their frustration points.

As for 3 and 4, I'd have to think about it.

Although there may be a Go14, the voting process yielded 100 votes. Often when I visit here someone has already made the points I see so I don't bother to post. I am not alone in that practice.

I feel as though we are at an unbreakable impasse here, and the same one we were at a few weeks ago, which is namely how to decide these 2 questions that seem to require more then 2 choices.

---------------- ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do abstentions count toward this? For the first part, I propose a set of choices: 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, other. Or some other set. And I don't know if we should do preferential voting or not. Sorry. For the second part, it's a simple 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 How many Buffistas should it take to bring a proposal to a formal discussion and vote? a. 0 b. 3 c. ? d. some other number? (OK, so the actual question would be something like this: Before a proposal moves to formal discussion, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree? Or something. I'm kind of lost. Ideas on phrasing?)

Although there may be a Go14, the voting process yielded 100 votes. Often when I visit here someone has already made the points I see so I don't bother to post. I am not alone in that practice.

Yeah, which means that if you aren't one of the posters, you're not counted in consensus, and there was on the table the idea that there is now consensus for a specific type of voting.

edit: This one time, that is.