Zoe: Nobody's saying that, sir. Wash: Yeah, we're pretty much just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

'Our Mrs. Reynolds'


Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier  

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


bicyclops - Mar 13, 2003 2:28:14 pm PST #7478 of 10001

Cindy, I don't understand how:

I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.

reconciles with:

I think it should be question by question.

Cause if abstentions count toward MVT, then MVT is applied to the whole ballot, not question by question. Or did I misinterpret you?


Sophia Brooks - Mar 13, 2003 2:31:33 pm PST #7479 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

Cause if abstentions count toward MVT, then MVT is applied to the whole ballot, not question by question. Or did I misinterpret you?

conceivably, someone could show up and abstain all the time. I don't understand it, really, but I think maybe someone who was against voting entirely might want to do it, or if abstentions count toward MVT, someone might do it just to get people to stop talking.


Katie M - Mar 13, 2003 2:32:55 pm PST #7480 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies

It seems fair to me that abstentions should count toward "I can see that this is something that should be decided one way or the other but I personally don't care."


John H - Mar 13, 2003 2:35:46 pm PST #7481 of 10001

I can't see a situation in which the abstentions-counting-for-MVT thing has a negative outcome.

Thinking about it logically, it means that votes are more likely to pass where there are smaller numbers of people who really care a lot.

Would a vote with a hundred votes, 6 for, 4 against, and 90 abstains, be a bad thing? It would still have a majority in the proposed situation.


DavidS - Mar 13, 2003 2:36:55 pm PST #7482 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Sorry, I grasp Dana's question now.

I had not anticipated multiple question ballots after we get the proceedings set up. But it's conceivable, and then I'd say the only fair way is on a question by question basis.


Typo Boy - Mar 13, 2003 2:44:18 pm PST #7483 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.

A few quick points.

I will post an explaination of binary walk in natter , then link to it here. Since it is not under consideration, I won't be in a hurry.

On abstentions: abstentions should count towards a mvt, because "no" counts towards minimum voter turnout. Otherwise it could happen that if I vote "no" on an issue it passes, but if I vote "present" it fails.

I favor a high number of seconds and a low minimum voter turnout. That is why I suggest 15. I honestly think you will be able to get 15 seconds for anything worth voting on. But also think around 25 is a high enough voter turnout to pass something. I mean if fifteen people want to discuss something, and another ten show up, and there is proper notification and all - I think non-voting is genuine indifference to the outcome, and people who don't vote will be okay with however it shows up. I think we may want to make a point of cross posting notification rather than just putting them in press when the actual voting begins, and maybe even when formal discussion begins.


Wolfram - Mar 13, 2003 2:50:40 pm PST #7484 of 10001
Visilurking

I favor a high number of seconds and a low minimum voter turnout. That is why I suggest 15. I honestly think you will be able to get 15 seconds for anything worth voting on.

Not to be a naysayer, but nay. A second is not just someone who thinks something should be voted on, but is (depending on the question) someone who thinks something should be changed. So in a way, by not seconding you can be sure your inevitable "no" vote never needs to happen. And getting 15 seconds on a board with the infamous GO14 (in other words, where there's barely 15 people doing most of the talking), would IMO prove damn near impossible for most issues down the road.


amych - Mar 13, 2003 2:58:59 pm PST #7485 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

A second is not just someone who thinks something should be voted on, but is (depending on the question) someone who thinks something should be changed.

I don't see it that way at all. If I second something, I'm saying, "I think this is worth discussing further," not, "I intend to vote 'yes'."


John H - Mar 13, 2003 3:02:46 pm PST #7486 of 10001

getting 15 seconds on a board with the infamous GO14 (in other words, where there's barely 15 people doing most of the talking)

Ooh, please don't let's start this up again, even in jest.

X-percentage of posts in the entire bureaucracy thread came from fourteen people.

And another percentage came from fifteen people, and another from sixteen people.

It doesn't mean anything.

There are about 800 registered, and 135 people voted.

Those are interesting numbers.


Wolfram - Mar 13, 2003 3:14:23 pm PST #7487 of 10001
Visilurking

Okay, can someone explain the purpose of seconds for me? Is it to limit ballots or discussion or neither?