But Cindy, posting isn't an indicator of anything other than posting. There are people with a different sort of self control than I who read and don't post whose opinions are also valid.

If you make the spread more "reasonable", then I'll be forced to vote 15 when I really mean 10, and that's having someone else's subjective interpretation shape my decision. I prefer the too wide net.

But I don't think just regular posters have opinions. I'm not a regular poster in the music or movies thread (or really, any thread other than this one and Natter), but I have opinions out the wazoo!

Right. And you'll get to express them in a vote. But requiring a minimum for the topic to come to a vote, requiring a (any sized) minimum vote total for the vote to count, requiring a 50%+1 vote majority, for any topic to pass are already hurdles an issue has to pass. Are we going to make the minimum vote total for new issues insurrmountable? Because really, that's a big change in philosophy from before.

Before, if more people that cared to chime in on an issue, wanted something, they got it. Our only real problem was, as we grew, we had trouble determining whether we were making our decision because more people agreed, or because loud people spoke last.

You have opinions on lots of things, so show up and vote.

But Cindy, posting isn't an indicator of anything other than posting. There are people with a different sort of self control than I who read and don't post whose opinions are also valid.

I don't get this objection, because the more prolific of us, aren't getting any more votes than the lurkers.

I'm talking about setting the range for the minimum vote total, that's all.

But you're using what I think is an arbitrary number (posters) to set a boundary. I don't see why the number of active posters has anything to do with the price of tea in China. We don't know if the readers are twice that, or 15 times that.

If the outcome of this doesn't work, we can change it, right?

Here's why I think 2 -- 100 is a good range: It runs all the way from meaningless (IMO) to the maximum number of voters we're likely to get ever (assuming the first two votes had the largest turnout).

Oh yeah, what Sophia said is the other thing: we can make a decision, try it on for 6 months, and then revisit.

we can make a decision, try it on for 6 months, and then revisit.

I'll be in the snug with a glass of scotch and my old service revolver.

But you're using what I think is an arbitrary number (posters) to set a boundary. I don't see why the number of active posters has anything to do with the price of tea in China. We don't know if the readers are twice that, or 15 times that.

No, the arbitrary number is this 2-100, based on the fact that we once had one ballot with 100 voters.

I'm not using number of posters, so much as trying to determine whether we have a lot of cars on our roads or a few people that drive a lot. Here's why I don't see analyzing posting habits in popular threads as arbitrary. A big point of the anti-proliferationistas is - we need to define what we are, and what we want to be, and what we will become if there are fewer or no M.E. shows on the air. I agree.

The resistance to thread-proliferation (which I think is wise) is that people don't want us split up into a bajillion little threads. So let's look at our biggest threads. Let's see if they are big and active because tons of people use them regularly, or if it is because they attract a core of regular and prolific users.

If 25 people make 75% of the natter posts (that's probably an underestimate - I'm asspulling numbers), is it fair to make a new thread get 50 votes in favor, before we approve it? If 50 is our MVT, and someone proposes a David Greenwalt's Miracles thread, and 40 people vote in favor of it and 5 vote no, is it fair to not allow it, because it didn't get 50?

Regular posters should not get more votes than the quiet or the lurky. Their opinions on votes shouldn't weigh more. BUT in determining minimums, we need to look at how many people show up on a regular basis in our biggest threads.

If one group of people wants something and another doesn't, don't you think the people who don't want it should have to vote and say they don't want it? Do you think they get to win by not showing up? Lurkers still get to shape the board if/when they vote. But is it fair if we allow non-voting lurkers to shape the board for the people who actively participate?

we need to look at how many people show up on a regular basis in our biggest threads.

I agree. Except I define "show up" as "read", and then beg out because of insufficient data.

Really, I don't think that's a matter for boundary setting. I think it's a matter for the discussion that precedes the vote. If many cogent arguments are made for 50 (other than Jesse's One True Answer), then the votes might skew that way. But I don't think it should be applied any earlier.

edit: Numbah!