A new version:

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 question, put a number between 10 and 100 into this box, please: [  ]

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) if so, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree before a proposal moves to formal discussion? Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box, please: [  ]

Okay, post 7179 was more than a little snippy.

But you know what? If people say preferential balloting is too complicated for them, it is. If they say quantum mechanics isn't, it isn't.

You can't argue that away. Or snark it away.

It just is, and the implication that I'm being wilful or recalcitrant because I don't agree with the POV? Makes me snippy.

I apologise for expressing my defensiveness.

(Mean means average, dude.)

Mean is the meanest of averages. It's the average you get when you add up all the averages and divide them by themselves. "Mode" is French and means "the most fashionable number". "Median" means "strip of grass in the middle of the road" so you just pick the most boring number.

It's the average you get when you add up all the averages and divide them by themselves.

Nuh-uh. That only works if all the averages are averages of the same number of numbers.

I like the idea of using the mean.

Sorry Hil. I know nothing about math. But that's another seconding, or a vote for, the mean.

I was joking.

About the stat analysis snark. And that we would even consider using something other than "mean" to mean "average."

Mean is the meanest of averages. It's the average you get when you add up all the averages and divide them by themselves. "Mode" is French and means "the most fashionable number". "Median" means "strip of grass in the middle of the road" so you just pick the most boring number.

Thank you, John, for reintroducing something reocgnizably loopy and Buffistalike in this process.

I like the ballot.

Can I just emphasize one thing?

I know I've gotten to the point where I just want to throw the shit at the wall and see what sticks.

We are not supposed to be throwing the shit at each other.

Wall is over there.

Is everybody else asleep? I consene myself t / Devinyls and say, Let's go with that ballot. Put it up before everybody wakes up. Quick!

So we were mad because preferential voting was going be instituted for one vote only by a consensus of the "same old gang of 14" . And now we are going to use a statistical average?

Let me suggest something else. Why not put the ability to rank in the ballot and then include in the ballot a series of two, or three or however many yes/no questions it takes to decide how to count. So seconds yes/no.

And then let be people choose:

Extra question 1) If no number for a mininum turnout wins a majority should we have a run-off or use an average of all choices to count the results?

Extra Question 2) If run-off is the method chosen,have a single ballot run-off or a multi-ballot run0ff?

Then we count the ballots the way people say we should. No extra voting is needed unless people vote for a multi-ballot runj-off and then they want extra voting.

We only vote (just this one time) by preferential voting if people choose to do it.

We only use average this one time if people choose to do it. No choice is imposed by false consensus. No one sit there feeling "cool kids" or "gang of 14' have forced something through by filibustering or shouting.

Everything is on one ballot. Every choice is decided democratically. Nothing is forced through. It is simple and nothing is rammed down anybody's throat. I honestly think this a solution.

Gar, that post made no sense to me. Seriously. It's late, I'm tired.

Smaller words?

OK Gar, it's five-fifteen PM in my brain and even I'm finding that a bit confusing.

Why not put the ability to rank in the ballot and then include in the ballot a series of two, or three or however many yes/no questions it takes to decide how to count. So seconds yes/no.

So you're saying do preferential votes for the number to make MVT, and yes-no for what, exactly?

If no number for a mininum turnout wins a majority - have a run-off or use an average of peoples choices.

Well people wouldn't object to using the average of the prefs-vote if they're not objecting to using the average of numbers they put in by hand -- but I think the old argument of usability will come up and people will say "too fiddly".

I'm really liking "average of numbers entered" at this time.

And, like I said before, I've got some stats on exactly who's in the damn Gang at home which include word counts. No disrespect to DX's stats of course.