Cindy says:

I'm asking because, I think if we give Buffistas a range between 1 and 100 (or 2 and 100, or 10 and 100), we're going to come up with an average of 50 to 60. Theory of central tendency blah blah blah.

I'm not sure about this. (Repeating myself from yesterday) The 32% that voted against MVT on the first ballot would vote for the lowest possible number, if their minds haven't changed. I think this would skew the outcome lower than 50, which is why I'm willing to accept 100 as the upper limit on the ballot. I'm assuming (hoping) that there aren't that many people that will vote for 100.

Here's a thought: I don't think I've seen one person argue that MVT should actually be as high as 100. I remember someone saying 65, I've obviously said 50, and then several other people have been for lower numbers -- even as low as zero. So, assuming that's a fair breakout of general trains of thought, the average number we come out with seems like it will come out much lower than the average of 2 and 100, no?

Edit: Crossposty with bicylcops! So we must both be right.

I have a concern about Item 4:

ITEM 4: SECONDS

a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?

b) if so, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion? Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box, please: [ ] Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box, please: [ ]

If you respond NO on a) there is no mechanism within the question to indicate you should also answer b) anyway, in case a) passes despite your NO vote.

The lowest number should be "3" not "2", nor "1", nor "0".

It shouldn't be 0 - because people did vote for minimum vote total, (which I voted against, but still, I don't think it's fair to, in essence, negate the results of that ballot). It shouldn't be "1" because that's a meaningless minimum. It's shouldn't be "2" because we need a majority (50% +1 vote) for something to pass. The lowest number on the range should be 3.

I don't think that average is a good solution, but I'm hardly going to argue at this point, since I'm bereft of better ideas.

I don't either, and me too.

I still think 100 is a really arbitrary number, but I'm shutting up, because I'm realizing I don't care as much as I'm acting like I do.

If you respond NO on a) there is no mechanism within the question to indicate you should also answer b) anyway, in case a) passes despite your NO vote.

This is a good point, and that should be addressed.

What about something like:

ITEM 4: SECONDS

a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?
b) *Please choose a minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion. Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box: [ ]

*Whether you vote yes or no on a) please respond to b) in case a) passes.

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?

Wrod to the argument, and wrod to the hypothetical thread.

I personally think the MVT should be somewhere between 10 and 20, but I also think that we should agree to be flexible about MVT if we see that a) too many things are getting passed with few participants, or b) nothing is getting passed because we never get enough participants. I suspect that whether the MVT is 5 people or 50 people, the MVT will consistently get met on every vote, and most of this will be moot.

a) Should more than one Buffista be needed in order to move something to formal discussion and vote?

b) *Please choose a minimum number of people who have to agree with the original proposer before a proposal moves to formal discussion. Put a number between 1 and 10 into this box: [ ]

Change b) to 0 and 10 and you don't need a).

That is really weird, becuase I would swear when I wrote it it said

"If this item passes..."

Also, should I edit the proposal Jesse linked to reflect that and the 2 - 100 thing? Are those the only changes?

(also, I'm sorry I keep doing this thing where I say i'm taking a break and then don't. I guess it is impossible for me to shut up)

But, Wolfram, if you change B to between 0 and 10, then, if you've voted NO for a) and vote 0 for b) then you've basically removed yourself from the decision if A passes despite your no vote, don't you?