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.
Okay, now I understand. For awhile there, I was starting to feel like an idiot and, hey, Calculus 3 may have kicked my ass but I made through 2 so not a complete idiot. Most of the time, anyway.
Right now, I'm leaning towards the current proposal of how we decide MVT because it makes sense to me. You guys used small words. I'm a happy girl.
I don’t know why I still think this should be a fairly simple process. But I do think it should be simple. Clearly for the board to function it needs bureaucracy as well as code. That is why the bureaucracy thread exists.
Some people will never visit this thread or will take a peak and flee. I never visit the Due South or Music threads. They do not intimidate me or frustrate me, it is just not where my interests lie. I am not the most vocal here, but bureaucracy does interest me so I participate. I don’t think that people not interested in bureaucracy should be forced to participate. I will not be forced to live in Sang Sacre no matter how much fun it might be.
This thread may rack up large numbers in post counts, but I would not expect the number of active participants to be the same as the show or natter threads.
I am very much in agreement with Sophia in wanting desperately to find a way to make this process less upsetting to people. I truly believe that when whatever process is established it will be less stressful for everyone.
Hey, it is after my bedtime, so I'm starting to ramble. Good night all. Peace.
We round to the nearest five.
Sorry, this is the sort of minutia that scares people away, but do you mean we average all the numbers and then round to the nearest 5, or that we round and then average. Because the latter makes no sense to me. It introduces a bias.
John, I think you can work the seconds part into the original proposal, but I am tired and going to bed:
I'm reposting Jesse's proposal so we can make some modifications:
OK, so based on what Sophia posted, and kind of stealing from Cindy's format, here's the first draft of a new ballot. It's very drafty:
ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD
Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?
A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.
A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)
----------------
ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION
Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?
A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.
A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.
----------------
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
a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote.
b) 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?)
I was assuming it meant round the resulting average of all numbers to the nearest five, but I honestly don't care about rounding. I'd be happy with 17 or 93 or whatever.
And, it is the
mean
we're talking about isn't it?
