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
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....
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)
Not necessarily -- if most people think the MVT should be 25, that'll skew the average lower.
I like X-Treme Natter.
X-treme Natter! We're trying this at home!
Sweet!
If half of the voters go for 10ish and half go for 100ish, yes it will end up middleish, but this is a risk I am willing to take.
All I see is people saying "I don't like the fact that we've been discussing this for a long time and in a lot of detail..."
FWIW, I wouldn't have believed it till I saw it that people can get into screaming arguments about voting methods. But I did see it, and witnessing a screaming argument can be so upsetting to many Buffistas that I think they (certainly I, for a while) just back away slowly and want nothing to do with it. The fact that last night's posts
still
managed to get rude and snippy means that, yeah, it's still Must Avoid Territory for a lot of people.
What burns me out? Length and repetitiveness of posts, intricacy of detail and example, people talking past one another and being unable to agree on what words (i.e. "quorum") mean long enough to use those words for a purpose. And really, the sense that I, as a Buffista Good Citizen, have to read 500 posts about a topic I find abstruse and boring! (I say "have to" because citizenship means being concerned about maintaining the community.) Obviously, some people love this stuff, but just as obviously, it's confusing and feels like criminal over-thinking to other people.
Have we got a formal proposal (I mean one that hasn't been tinkered with since it was posted)? Let's get something on the table and vote on it, in a desperate attempt to get this
over with.
Let's stop being academic and "what-if", and do it already.
Good, yes, I like that too, and many thanks to Sophia and John H for trying to soldier through the statistical fray, purpose intact.
Laura nominates, I second; are we for it? Can we write this proposal on stone tablets and set voting for, um, soon?
Good, yes, I like that too, and many thanks to Sophia and John H for trying to soldier through the statistical fray, purpose intact.
What Nutty said. [Edit: I mean, seconded-ed, if that's needed]
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: [ ]
One nitpick - We need to be clear that this number excludes the person who makes the proposal. i.e. a "1" means one person proposes and one other person seconds.
