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.)

I like John's suggestion, except it might make more sense to round to the nearest 5, so we don't get a weirdo MVT like 27.

And I think the seconds thing should be a separate vote.

Plei:

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.

I used the term "Status Quo-ers" in my rant (7039) in a manner that I now see could be interpreted as insulting. I meant to be snarky / humorous. I'm sorry I didn't get the right tone. I sincerely didn't mean to imply that the status quo is a bad thing. I'm also sorry the rant reignited a debate that escalated into unpleasantness.

Good night and good vibes to all.

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.)

No, cause Statz-R-Sex-ay

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.

When I asked this awhile ago, the only thing that I remember anyone mentioning was changing the spoiler policy, wrt mentioning Buffy in the Angel thread and vice versa. But (a) that seems to have worked itself out, and (b) it could have easily been put into multiple two-option ballots, as first "should the spoiler policy change?" and second "should the waiting period be one week or two weeks?" since those seemed to be what most of the suggestions came down to.

apparently people have been so hugely dissatisfied with the Bureaucracy consensuses (consenses?) that we now have a voting system instead

One example of "bullshit consensus" which I think Jim came up with a while back on WX Contingency was "shall we have a new [something] thread".

It got raised three times, and the first two times it was talked down. The third time someone said "see, this is why we should have a [something] thread", it got made.

Nobody was saying that it was a case of deliberate consensus-rigging. But it was a good example, made more serious by the fact of technical problems with the board caused in part by large numbers of threads.

I sincerely didn't mean to imply that the status quo is a bad thing. I'm also sorry the rant reignited a debate that escalated into unpleasantness.

But now it's descalated (I think I'm making that word up), so it's all good.