After a moment to think --

Does someone want to produce a new version of the vote thing with different wording, not including the A-word?

Should Buffistas who vote, but vote "no preference either way" be counted toward Minimum Voter Turnout?

or something?

I realise now that "abstain" is just as bad a word as "quorum" because as people have pointed out, it means being present but not voting, and the idea of "presence" is meaningless. That's why we need to stop using it.

Triple Cereal:

And shall we start numbering these revisions of the vote, so that we can say "oh no, I hate version 1.3, can we go back to Sophia's 1.2 [link]"?

Version 1.3 (unfortunately, I also edited 1.2)

A new version:

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.

A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)

----------------

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION

Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.

A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.

----------------

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?

For the first question, put a number between 2 and 100 into this box, please: [  ] An AVERAGE (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these numbers will be used to determine the voter turnout

For the second part, it's a simple yes or no.

If you vote yes, you would allow people to register their vote as an "no preference" -- that is, with no preference for either choice -- and that vote would count toward the minimum number

If you vote no, you want only votes that prefer one option to count toward the minimum.

----------------

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, please: [ ]
You may answer this question even if you choose to vote no to proposal (a)
An AVERAGE of these numbers (rounded to the nearest whole number) will be used to determine the number of people needed to second. [  ]

Thanks Sophia, you're a legend.

Doing it this way may also mean that we can Nilly various important points in the discussion -- "See the latest vote-formulation here".

I have a suggestion:

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do votes of "no preference" count toward this?

For the first question [...]

For the second part [...]

I would prefer this moved around like this:

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count?

[MVT stuff]

Do votes of "no preference" count toward the MVT?

[no-prefs stuff]

I think it's better to present the two questions serially rather than paralelly...

It's funnt becuase I think 2 differant people forumlated 3 and 4, and it shows!

Please excuse my typing-- I've had a beer.

Thanks Sophia, you're a legend.

Seconded.

See what you guys did? You drove poor Sophia to drink.

I've just had Merlot. But I'm pronouncing it MerFreedom, Sophia.

WHEW! Laura posted which means I can post so we can keep our posting numbers in equilibrium.

I'm also posting this here because I'm too exhausted to take this backchannel and I don't see the point of using backchannel for something which happened here.

I don't need to be made to feel better. I just want to point out that the people whowere using the phrase "bullshit consensus" before need to realize that complaining about the phrase "Gang of 14" now is more than a little hypocritical.

I don't even I remember if it was me that used the term bullshit consensus, but you certainly seem to imply that one of those people is me and it's not even hard to believe that it would be me. Yet, instead of saying it outright it's all implication.

It's apparent that I have offended you and pissed you off by using it, but instead of voicing it at the time (or maybe you did and I never saw it), you're implying it now. So I'd like to apologize because it was never my intent to say something that you would carry around with you for weeks, something that has pissed you off and made you angry.

However, I do have a request to make. If something I say does make you angry enough for you to catalog it away as an offense against you, something which you will feel compelled to bring up later, can you at least let me know? Because then I can either apologize or at least acknowledge your feelings and because then I will be aware that you are upset. I'd rather just address it at the time than let have something I've said fester for you.

My trying to create a personal fester free zone is the soul reason why I posted what I did about being offended by PMM's comment. She at least has the benefit of knowing that I'm offended and she can do whatever she wants on her end. But she has the information, which is what I'd like.

And no, I didn't want a Movies thread particularly. I've been anti-thread-proliferation since it's been an issue. But since I have always been a loud participant in this thread, yes I did feel singled out by those accusations.

You know what, (and I'm not sure if this will offend you more or not) you weren't even on my radar as one of the people who was vocally involved in wanting the Movie Thread. In other words, my use of bullshit consensus wasn't even about you.

Nevertheless, you feel it was and for that I'm sorry.