Hec shortly after came up with the number 65 because it was around half of the people who voted, 135. Now I look at it, I guess it's half of 135 rounded up to the nearest five...

*cough*arewetakingthezerosoutcompletely*cough*

eta:

The number 50 is the WHORE of BABYLON and Jesse is its PIMP.

17 is the ONE TRUE NUMBER. NILLY SHALL SHOW YOU THE WAY!!!

Sorry.

Right. No rounding. Just up to the nearest or down.

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?

My understanding is that we are going to average the results, so if it's only one question then seconding will automatically pass. Even if we were going to just use the number that comes up with the highest vote, it skews in favor of seconding. I'd rather see the question asked outright.

Can we add another question for the tabling (U.S.) of issues? Something along the lines of:

Once a subject has been raised for discussion and formally voted on, the results of that vote will be considered final and no futher discussion of that issue will be permitted for

a) 6 months b) 1 year

(just glad this thread can make me laugh again. Carry on.)

97!!

Once a subject has been raised for discussion and formally voted on, the results of that vote will be considered final and no futher discussion of that issue will be permitted for

a) 6 months b) 1 year

I like this, but we were previously thinking that it made too many questions on opne ballot. Does anyone still think this because I would like to add.

I am going to take out the rounding to the nearest 5 and put rounding to the nearest whole number.

Anything else?

I also seem to remember a question as to whether the abstention counted toward the majority (which will necessitate some special type of vote for each yes no abstain vote). Is there still a question? Personally I think it shouldn't, since an abstention means undecided and/or doesn't care one way opr the other.

I like this, but we were previously thinking that it made too many questions on opne ballot. Does anyone still think this because I would like to add.

I'd like the time frame to remain off the ballot, because I think it needs to be discussed more. I think 6 months is too long. Perhaps 3.

I thought about adding three to that, but didn't want to get into the majority issue. And really, six is what I've seen most people advocating, so it seemed to me like something we could get decided without dragging this process on much longer.

I also seem to remember a question as to whether the abstention counted toward the majority (which will necessitate some special type of vote for each yes no abstain vote).

I think the question is whether it counts towards the MVT (which I think it should) - I can't imagine it counting towards the majority. But why would it require a special type of vote?

I think the question is whether it counts towards the MVT (which I think it should) - I can't imagine it counting towards the majority. But why would it require a special type of vote?

Before this wanders off and starts talking and shit, the question was whether abstentions count towards MVT. According to Sophia's research on rules of order and such, that depends on our charter (or consensus or vote or whatthefuckever). Abstentions never count a majority in any of the examples she could find.

There was a post WAY earlier that was advocating

Yes No Abstain

For every ballot, and if ONE of those didn't get a majority we wouldn't do anything.

So if

yes 50% (50 people)
no 25% (25 people)
abstain (25 people)

No action would be taken.

Instead of

yes 67 % (50 people) no 33% (25 people) abstain 25 people

Where yes would win.