Jayne ,'Out Of Gas'
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
on the same balot they decide turnout requirements how to count those votes. Averaging would be one choice
OK, I think I see your point now. It's a bit meta -- the vote contains a vote on the vote-counting method? -- but I'm going to abstain from thinking about it now because I'm Going Home To My Wife.
You know, it's still fun saying that.
Back later maybe.
Well if you are going to count numbers people just input I'd prefer a binary walk, but I suppose that would be too complicated.
Any way go ahead and do it. But you are not reaching a consenus. You are outvoting me 5 to 1, so fair enough.
Christ, I hate to mention it, but we're 900 away from needing a Natter X title.
Suggestions?
(Natter: X Marks the Spot, Natter: X-tra, X-tra, Read All About Us?)
X-treme Natter! Don't try this at home!
But you are not reaching a consenus.
Agreed. But, at least for this evening, it's more of a consensus than we got for preferential voting.
X-treme Natter! Don't try this at home!
or: X-treme Natter! We're trying this at home!
I just want to say that I love the idea of being able to enter my own MVT number. I was kind of afraid that the choices would end up being 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, and I would somehow have to rank those, which would be impossible because everyone should know THE RIGHT ANSWER IS 50. Ahem.
Add me to the idea of averages. I guess it's 8 to 1 then...
Why don't we try preferential voting for the Natter 10 title, anyway?
t ducks
The thing is, Gar is right-- we just reached another false consensus. It is impossible to reach a true consensus. That is whay we're voting.
I'm still OK with "average number"
What I am more concerned about is that we decided to have X number of days of formal discussion before a vote, and I think we should announce the beginning of the discussion in Press.
Doesn't asking Buffista voters to pick a number between 10 and 100, and then averaging the answer tend to guarantee picking a number in the middle of the range (i.e. 50-60) -- what I mean there is very little chance of arriving at a number like 90 or 15? I'm assuming that people will be picking numbers all over the map, though even if we have a bunch voting ten and another bunch voting 100, it would still pull towards averaging in the middle...?
Maybe it's just early and I'm not processing numbers as well as I ought....