I have heard the call of the lurking masses who want only to know, “What are Laura’s views of the weighty decisions at hand?” So here goes:

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD
As much fun as choosing names for a Supreme Court thread might be, I really think that one Bureaucracy thread is plenty. I don’t envision calls for quick tag fixes or thread name decisions getting lost in discussions of voting matters.
I could be swayed by a compelling argument, but I haven’t seen one yet.
----------------
ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION
I think a No makes sense here. We do seem to live for enjoy discussion and calling an absolute halt at a specific moment in time seems impossible to enforce unlikely. Lobbyists have up until the moment I cast my vote to attempt to change my mind on issues.
----------------
ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT
Part One: MNV - The claim that 50 is the only right answer is wrong as a thing that is wrong not quite right in my mind. Right now there is a high level of interest in voting, but that may not remain the case. Also, the numbers of active participants may vary during the summer or if there are no current ME shows. I’m thinking a number around 25 myself.
Part Two: Abstention votes should count toward the minimum and should always be an option. Because anything else would be wrong.
----------------
ITEM 4: SECONDS
Yes, more than one Buffista should be needed to move to a formal discussion and vote.

I elect to use my right of abstention on this vote and leave the decision on this matter to my fellow Buffistas, in whom I have the utmost confidence to make a righteous decision.

I thought we were just going to do an averag ebecasue it was simpleist. If you are thinking about means and modes, then I am going to seriously argue for a binary walk - because it can't be easily skewed.

I thought we were just going to do an averag ebecasue it was simpleist. If you are thinking about means and modes, then I am going to seriously argue for a binary walk - because it can't be easily skewed.

Means and medians were really the only two MoCT mentioned in all seriousness. Mode was not to be taken seriously.

Mean would make the most sense, w/median as a sanity check.

If you are thinking about means and modes

I haven't seen anyone seriously argue for using mode. And "mean" is average, isn't it? At least the way we've been defining it.

I don’t envision calls for quick tag fixes or thread name decisions getting lost in discussions of voting matters.

I do. I want the voting stuff to be separate.

I haven't seen anyone seriously argue for using mode. And "mean" is average, isn't it? At least the way we've been defining it.

Yes. Also, Occam suggests more peeps know what average or "mean" is and how it works than binary walk. So, K.I.S.S. Just saying.

I do. I want the voting stuff to be separate.

ITA. Seeing as it's sort of happening at the moment, the thread name loss.

All Hail Occam and His Mighty Razor.

I vote mean.

X Marks the Natter Spot

?

In honor of the ongoing Violent Femmes tribute we had going with Natter 8.

Natter 10 10 10 for everything everything everything everything!

Hate me for asking, but what's a Binary Walk?

It seems like there should be some bad joke I could use here along the lines of "what's a greek urn?" "about fifty drachma a week!" boom-tish, but I've just got up.

And Gar, for all I know a Binary Walk is the industry standard for doing this kind of thing, but the fact that I have to ask is the problem. I think we've learned through bitter experience that any math that needs explaining to people will raise hackles here.

Everyone will know what a mean is, and nearly everyone who uses the word "average" thinks of a mean when they say it, is my impression.

A binary walk is like a cakewalk. If you're standing on the right circle when the music stops, you win a bunch of ones and zeroes.

I never did figure out what an elephant walk is, but there's a restaurant by that name nor far from where I live.