Buffy ,'Showtime'
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
OK doing the dance of Actually Formulating A Proposal:
Proposal: that we allow free-text entry of numbers into the vote for Seconds and for Minimum Voter Turnout.
Seconds: we ask for a number between 1 and 20 and ignore numbers that don't fit.
MVT: we ask for a number between 10 and 100 and ignore numbers that don't fit.
Rounding: we round to the nearest five.
Oops I feel like I stepped on Sophia's toes now.
And rounding to the nearest five only applies to MVT.
I meant one proposal, 2 votes.
4a. Do you want seconds?
4b if seconds win, how many do you want?
Maybe re-word 4b to "if you want seconds, or have an opinion on how many, even though you are against seconds, how many do you feel should be required?" ? or something?
No, that is OK. We just haven't decided on whether or not we need seconds yet. The MVT was on the previous ballot.
OK slightly amended MVT Number Proposal:
PROPOSAL: that we allow Buffistas to just tell us the number they think is right for Minimum Voter Turnout.
Details: we ask for a number between 10 and 100 and reject other numbers. We round to the nearest five.
Wow! So statistical analysis is cool, but a preferential ballot is too complicated? t eyeroll
bitterchick - All that's ever been proposed with respect to preferential balloting is that we use it to determine the secondses and the MVT. That's all.
The issue that was raised with using a mean, mode, median, whatever, is that no one ends up happy. With a preferential ballot, most people get their first or second choice. With a mean, etc., you could end up in a middle that no one wants.
That said, I'm not opposed to using a mean if it means (heh!) that we'll have this fucking vote already.
Pardon my French.
John - it's easy enough to code the ballot so that numbers outside the range error out. I don't think you need to say that we will "reject" them.
it's easy enough to code the ballot so that numbers outside the range error out. I don't think you need to say that we will "reject" them.
Fair enough -- how about coding the form so that the vote is not accepted unless/until all the numbers are in range, are you up for that?
how about coding the form so that the vote is not accepted unless/until all the numbers are in range, are you up for that?
Easy peasy.
t edit which is to say, that's what I meant.
PROPOSAL: that we allow Buffistas to just tell us the number they think is right for Minimum Voter Turnout.
Details: we ask for a number between 10 and 100. The voting form will ask you to vote again if your numbers are out of range. We round to the nearest five.