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
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?
But, Sophia, you're keeping it all on track. You can't break too long.
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?
You're right assuming we're averaging the numbers in B, but if we're just collecting the numbers and figuring out which number got the most votes, than all the no votes in a) could instead vote 0 in b) and you wouldn't need an a) question.
