'Not Fade Away'
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
The more I think about it, why aren't we just collecting the number data for minimum votes? It makes more sense to my pointy head than trying to randomly select numbers to choose from and then deciding how to choose between those..
That makes sense to me. There was an objection to it earlier that I can't remember-- I think the fact that it wouldn't be a "majority". However a median or a mode seems fair.
Thanks Sophia, for the explanation. So seconds aren't yet a done deal? So then we might not need to vote on the number.
There were thoughts in the original proposal that we would try to combine the vote so that one of the choices was 0, and thus avoid further voting. This point is still being waffled on.
That makes sense to me. There was an objection to it earlier that I can't remember-- I think the fact that it wouldn't be a "majority". However a median or a mode seems fair.
We could get the mean, median, and mode!
We could have actual numbers fun! (edit: that's not sarcasm. I'm also a ho for stats. Which tastes like strawberry ice cream. Honest.)
I would go for that. How about we agree that numbers over a hundred will not be accepted, and numbers under ten will not be accepted, and that the mean or median or whatever will win?
All numbers made up on the spot.
Right about now, I'm thinking that if you don't come into Kafka, you don't expect to have your silent wishes taken into account.
This is what I have always thought, but apparently people have been so hugely dissatisfied with the Bureaucracy consensuses (consenses?) that we now have a voting system instead of the "talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-consensus?-ok, consensus" system that seemed to be working fine for the past two years (and, presumably from before that, since I don't recall arriving in the middle of a major paradigm shift).
So, though it pains me to say it, we can no longer assume any kind of consensus , even when it seems obvious that we've got one. Because that's what started this whole ordeal in the first place.
Sounds good to me.
numbers under ten will not be accepted
I don't think that will work for the "second", as I think it should be one. (So that 2 total Buffistas think something is worth it)
The number of votes required for MVT and the number for seconds
Okay yes. But I was wondering about, beyond this initial voting to get a process in place, when would we have more than two options? Because honestly, I can't think of one. And, if there isn't one, then we're making ourselves and each other crazy over a voting process that will be used once or twice and then never again. Maybe instead of looking at the big picture here, we need to focus on this one unique situation as a special circumstance.
I don't think that will work for the "second", as I think it should be one. (So that 2 total Buffistas think something is worth it)
Hmm. True for seconds, but not for MVT.
Between 1 and 20 for seconds?
Ah, hell. Why not just have people fill in the number they think would work best, and run the measures of central tendency?
Okay, is it wrong that I find the idea of doing statistical analysis for this kind of thing incredibly endearing? Because I do. (So long as I don't have to personally do the analysis, you understand.)