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!

No, the arbitrary number is this 2-100

I think the basis for this range is valid in this vote. It covers all of the reasonable numbers that may be considered for MVT, even the totally wrong 50 option.

I would be interested to see how many posters there are in Buffy, Angel, Firefly, whatever. But that's just because I love data.

I feel like the most effective thing at this point would be to make your arguments for whatever number, and then people can read them, and if they buy them they can put that number.

I can see the argument for a 20ish number, but disagree with it. The real fact is, I can't imagine an issue that only 20 Buffistas will care enough about to pass judgement. We've regularly gotten 100+ votes in thread-naming polls. We love to express our opinion! Especially if it's as easy as a couple of clicks.

I think if only 20 people care enough to vote on something, there's something seriously wrong with us.

All right. What I would like to know is, on average (say for the past week) can we tell how many unique users posted at least once a day in a given thread. Or even, rather than average, pick a day out of the hat. On Tuesday, can we tell how many unique users posted at least once in Natter, Bitches, Buffy, Angel and Firefly?

I think if only 20 people care enough to vote on something, there's something seriously wrong with us.

But if we set up our system so that the conflict-averse among us don't even have to vote "no" to shut something down, I'm afraid that's what will happen.

I'm sure someone could find that out. It would probably take some time, and I'm not the person to do it, but I'm sure someone could. I mean, you could do it manually, by figuring out the post range you wanted, threadsucking, and then playing around with the posts you've just sucked.

I think if only 20 people care enough to vote on something, there's something seriously wrong with us.

What would be wrong with us, and if it were, how would one fix it?

Personally, I think if that thing is wrong with us, so be it.

ita, is it possible to tell how many user ids logged in? It makes sense for a regualr lurker to log in, and while this wouldn't tell us which threads they read, it would go some way towards 'regular user' numbers.